Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2622 (RAJ)

Nihal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-09-30

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment/order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby, he was convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). 2. Prosecution story, in brief, as per FIR No.289 dated 9.9.2012 registered at Police Station Sikri, District Bharatpur, on the basis of the report Exhibit P-2 lodged by the complainant-Banjara Singh, is that on 8.9.2012 at about 2.30 p.m., Lal Singh was sleeping on a cot. Nihal Singh son of Lal Singh was armed with a Darat and Ballam and was inflicting injuries to Lal Singh. As a result, Lal Singh suffered number of injuries on his face and other body parts. Harnam Singh, Jeet Singh, Pooran Singh etc., tried to stop Nihal Singh from inflicting injuries to his father, but he ran towards the complainant with a Darat and as a result, complainant and others stepped back out of fear. Nihal Singh was a liquor addict and was under the influence of intoxication at the time of the incident. Complainant came home and informed daughter of Lal Singh with regard to the incident. Lal Singh succumbed to his injuries. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. 4. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC by the trial court. Appellant did not plead guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eight witnesses, during trial. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case on account of his land dispute with his uncle. 6. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that occurrence had allegedly occurred on 8.9.2012 at about 2.30 p.m., whereas, the FIR was lodged on the next day at about 11.45 a.m. The delay in lodging the FIR had been used to falsely involve the appellant in this case by the complainant due to property dispute between them. Conduct of the complainant was most unnatural. In case, he had actually seen the appellant inflicting injuries to the deceased, he would have taken Lal Singh to the hospital for treatment. 8. Conduct of the complainant was most unnatural. In case, he had actually seen the appellant inflicting injuries to the deceased, he would have taken Lal Singh to the hospital for treatment. 8. Learned state counsel has opposed the appeal and has submitted that statements of PW-2 Banjara Singh, PW-3 Pooran Singh, PW-4 Harnam Singh and PW-8 Jeet Singh inspire confidence. All the said witnesses had seen the appellant present at the spot armed with Darat and Ballam and had run away from the spot on seeing the said witnesses. Since, it was a family matter and the appellant is none other than the son of the deceased, there was delay in lodging the FIR. Complainant immediately informed the daughter of the deceased with regard to the incident and the said fact is established from the statement of PW-6 Sundaro Bai. 9. Present case relates to murder of Lal Singh. 10. PW-1 Dr. Amrit Lal deposed that on 9.9.2012, he had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Lal Singh and had found eight injuries on his person. As per the said witness, deceased had suffered four incised wounds and the remaining injuries were bruises and contusions. The said witness proved the postmortem examination report Exhibit P-1. A perusal of Exhibit P-1 reveals that the deceased was aged about eighty years and had died on account of ante-mortem injuries suffered by him. 11. Complainant while appearing in the witness-box as PW-2 has deposed that on the day of incident, he had reached the spot and saw that Nihal Singh was filling wheat in the bags. When complainant inquired from appellant Nihal Singh regarding the whereabouts of Lal Singh, he was informed by the appellant that he had murdered Lal Singh. He saw that a bed-sheet had been spread over Lal Singh and when he removed the bed-sheet, he saw that on the face of Lal Singh number of injuries had been inflicted. Then the said witness deposed that he had seen appellant Nihal Singh inflicting injuries to Lal Singh with a Darat and Ballam. When he tried to stop Nihal Singh from inflicting injuries to Lal Singh, appellant ran after him with a Darat and he escaped from the spot. Harnam Singh, Pooran Singh and Jeet Singh had reached the spot and on seeing them Nihal Singh fled away from the spot. When he tried to stop Nihal Singh from inflicting injuries to Lal Singh, appellant ran after him with a Darat and he escaped from the spot. Harnam Singh, Pooran Singh and Jeet Singh had reached the spot and on seeing them Nihal Singh fled away from the spot. They had informed the daughter of Lal Singh on phone with regard to the incident. He further deposed that Nihal Singh was a liquor addict and wanted to sell wheat to buy liquor and he was stopped by Lal Singh from doing so and due to this reason, appellant had murdered Lal Singh. 12. Although, there appears to be some contradiction in the statement of PW-2 in his examination-in-chief to the fact as to whether he had reached the spot before the incident or after the incident, but in his cross-examination, he has clarified that when he reached the spot, Lal Singh was in an injured condition and in his presence also Lal Singh had been inflicted injuries by the appellant. 13. PW-3 Pooran Singh has deposed that he had gone to the house of Lal Singh and saw that Lal Singh was lying on a cot and he was telling Nihal Singh not to take wheat for sale with a view to buy liquor. However, Nihal Singh got angry and inflicted injuries to Lal Singh with a Darat on various parts of his body. When they tried to save Lal Singh, Nihal Singh ran after them with a Darat and as a result, they raised alarm and Nihal Singh ran towards the fields. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had not seen Nihal Singh inflicting injuries to Lal Singh. 14. PW-4 Harnam Singh deposed that on the day of the incident, he had reached the house of Lal Singh and saw that Nihal Singh was sitting there with a Darat and Ballam and told him that he had murdered Lal Singh. In his cross-examination, the witness deposed that Nihal Singh had inflicted injuries to the deceased in their presence. 15. PW-8 Jeet Singh deposed that on the day of the incident, he had gone to the house of Lal Singh. Lal Singh was the elder brother of his father. When he reached the spot, he saw that Nihal Singh was armed with a Darat and Ballam and was inflicting injuries to Lal Singh on various parts of his body. 15. PW-8 Jeet Singh deposed that on the day of the incident, he had gone to the house of Lal Singh. Lal Singh was the elder brother of his father. When he reached the spot, he saw that Nihal Singh was armed with a Darat and Ballam and was inflicting injuries to Lal Singh on various parts of his body. When they tried to intervene, Nihal Singh ran after them with the Darat. In the meantime, villagers came to the spot. Lal Singh was in an injured condition and was saying that he had been murdered by his son because he wanted to sell wheat with a view to buy liquor and he had stopped him from doing so and due to this reason, he (Nihal Singh) had inflicted injuries to him. Thereafter, Nihal Singh fled away from the spot. They had informed daughter of Lal Singh with regard to the incident. 16. PW-6 Sundaro Bai deposed that the appellant was her real brother. On the day of incident Banjara Singh had made a phone-call to her and had told her that her brother Nihal Singh had murdered her father and on receiving the said information, they had come to Domraki and at that time, her father had already died. In her cross-examination, she deposed that the villagers had not told her that Nihal Singh had murdered her father. 17. PW-7 Karam Singh, relative of the deceased, has not supported the prosecution case, during trial and has stated that Banjara Singh had falsely levelled allegation against the appellant with regard to the commission of murder of his father. 18. Thus, in the present case, Lal Singh had died on account of injuries suffered by him. As per PW-2 Banjara Singh, PW-3 Pooran Singh, PW-4 Harnam Singh and PW-8 Jeet Singh, Nihal Singh was present at the place of incident armed with a Darat. PW-8 has categorically deposed that appellant had inflicted injuries to Lal Singh. Complainant has also deposed that injuries had been inflicted to the deceased by the appellant. Since, deceased was father of the appellant, complainant informed the daughter of the deceased to take further action in the matter. The fact that the complainant had informed daughter of the deceased is corroborated from the statement of PW-6 Sundaro Bai (daughter of the deceased). Complainant has also deposed that injuries had been inflicted to the deceased by the appellant. Since, deceased was father of the appellant, complainant informed the daughter of the deceased to take further action in the matter. The fact that the complainant had informed daughter of the deceased is corroborated from the statement of PW-6 Sundaro Bai (daughter of the deceased). In case, somebody else had committed the offence, appellant should have lodged the FIR against the assailant. Rather, it is the complainant Banjara Singh, (who is a relative of the deceased as well as the appellant) who lodged report with regard to the incident with the police. The delay in reporting the matter to the police cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, from the evidence on record, it cannot be inferred that the appellant might have been falsely involved in this case. The plea taken by the appellant that he had been falsely involved in this case due to land dispute is not corroborated on record. Even no suggestion had been put to PW-2 Banjara Singh in the cross-examination with regard to the any property dispute pending between the family of PW-2 and the family of the appellant. 19. After carefully considering the statements of the complainant (PW-2), PW-3 Pooran Singh, PW-4 Harnam Singh and PW-8 Jeet Singh, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution had been successful in establishing its case against the appellant with regard to the charge framed against him. The said witnesses had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case. The statements of PW-2 Banjara Singh, PW-3 Pooran Singh, PW-4 Harnam Singh and PW-8 Jeet Singh being natural inspire confidence. 20. Hence, learned trial court had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant with regard to the charge framed against him. 21. No ground for interference is made out. 22. Dismissed.