Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2847 (RAJ)

Vinod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2019-11-15

SANDEEP MEHTA, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The matter today was listed for orders on the application for suspension of sentences preferred by the free legal aid counsel, Amicus Curiae Mr. Sunil Joshi. With the consent of the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor, the appeal itself has been heard finally. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by appellant Vinod Kumar from jail being aggrieved of the judgment dated 06.02.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.01/2014 (CIS No.47/2014), whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as below :- Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded Section 302 IPC Imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment of one year Section 458 IPC Rigorous imprisonment of five years alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000 and in default of payment of fine, additional simple imprisonment of six months All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for decision of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. Shri Jhanda Singh (P.W.2) submitted a written report (Ex.P/2) to the SHO, Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh on 08.12.2013 at about 10.00 a.m. alleging inter alia that he was a resident of Village Lilanwali and had five sons. Four of them were married and were residing in their own houses. The informant's son Jasveer Singh had taken up a separate residence with his wife Paramjeet Kaur and his three children in the Village Lilanwali. Jasveer Singh, alongwith his son and daughter had gone to visit his relatives at Rajpura about two days ago leaving behind his wife Paramjeet Kaur and son Gurdas at the village. In the morning at about 4-5 o'clock, Gurdas came to the informant. He was crying and stated that in the night time, Vinod Kumar S/o Mahendra Singh, by caste Majabi Sikh, resident of Lilanwali, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh came to their house and misbehaved with his mother Smt. Paramjeet Kaur. He put a rubber like belt around her neck, dragged her into the courtyard and killed her. Thereafter, the accused put the dead body on the cot. The informant and the other villagers immediately rushed to the house of Jasveer, where Paramjeet Kaur was seen lying dead on the cot. Gurdas told them that some other persons were present with Vinod Kumar at the time of the incident. Thereafter, the accused put the dead body on the cot. The informant and the other villagers immediately rushed to the house of Jasveer, where Paramjeet Kaur was seen lying dead on the cot. Gurdas told them that some other persons were present with Vinod Kumar at the time of the incident. Vinod Kumar had previously tried to outrage the modesty of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur and was continuously stalking and pressurizing her to establish physical relations. When Paramjeet did not buckle down to the illegal demands of the accused, he murdered her. 4. On the basis of the report aforesaid, an FIR No.751/2013 (Ex.P/3) came to be registered at the Police Station Sangaria for the offences under Sections 458, 354, 302/34 IPC and the investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the child eye-witness Gurdas, aged 9 years, son of the deceased Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, was examined under Section 161 CrPC as well as 164 CrPC and he thoroughly fortified the allegations set out in the FIR. The dead body of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur was subjected to postmortem by a medical board constituted at the Primary Health Center, Sangaria, which issued the postmortem report Ex.P/19, as per which, the right cornua of the hyoid bone was found fractured; well-defined groove-like parallel ligature marks were seen on the neck of the deceased; the thyroid cartilage was having haemorrhage and the deep muscles of neck were bruised. The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia resulting from strangulation. The Investigating Officer undertook the relevant steps of investigation, viz. Preparation of site inspection plan etc. The broken pieces of bangles lying at the spot were seized. The accused was arrested and a belt was recovered from his residential premises in furtherance of the information provided by him to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. After concluding the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 354 and 458 IPC. As the offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused in the above terms. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents to prove its case. The trial court framed charges against the accused in the above terms. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents to prove its case. Upon being examined under Section 313 CrPC and when confronted with the allegations appearing against him in the prosecution case, the accused denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated owing to party politics. Two documents were exhibited, but no oral evidence was led by the defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and appreciating and evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Judge proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above by the impugned judgment dated 06.02.2016. 6. Learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Sunil Joshi, representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The appellant had no motive to kill Smt. Paramjeet Kaur. The evidence of the child witness Gurdas is not reliable as it is full of contradictions and infirmities. The belt allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused was not sent to the FSL for examination of the blood group and as such, there is no corroboration to the evidence of the child witness. On these grounds, Mr. Joshi implored the court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the appellant of the charges. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He drew the court's attention to the FIR (Ex.P/15), which was lodged against the appellant and one Buggi @ Devilal in the month of September 2013 for molesting the deceased. He urged that after investigation of this report, a charge-sheet (Ex.P/16) was filed by the Investigating Officer against the appellant and the co- accused for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 354/34 IPC. The accused started bearing a grudge against the deceased because of this report. Taking advantage of the absence of Shri Jasveer Singh, the appellant barged inside the house, where the deceased and her minor son Gurdas were present during the night time. The accused tried to establish forcible sexual relation with Smt. Paramjeet Kaur. When she resisted, he dragged her by her hair and strangled her to death. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of Gurdas (P.W.1), the child witness, is clinching and convincing. The accused tried to establish forcible sexual relation with Smt. Paramjeet Kaur. When she resisted, he dragged her by her hair and strangled her to death. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of Gurdas (P.W.1), the child witness, is clinching and convincing. He was extensively grilled by the defence, but nothing was elicited in his crossexamination, which could detract from the evidentiary worth of his statement. The child's allegation that his mother was strangulated by the accused is thoroughly corroborated by the evidence of the Medical Officer Dr. Navneet Sharma (P.W.6), who proved the circumstances noticed on the dead body of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur when conducting postmortem, which were noted in the postmortem report (Ex.P/19). Learned Public Prosecutor, thus, urged that the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused appellant by unimpeachable ocular testimony supported by medical evidence and no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have carefully reappreciated the evidence available record. The prosecution has come out with a theory that the accused had an evil eye on the deceased and he had previously also, tried to outrage her modesty, for which, an FIR No.595/21.09.2013 had been lodged against him at the Police Station Sangaria. The said FIR has been proved as Ex.P/15 and the charge-sheet filed after investigation thereof for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 354 and 34 IPC has been proved as Ex.P/16. There is a clear allegation in the above referred FIR and the charge-sheet that the accused trespassed into the house of Smt. Paramjeet Kaur and tried to outrage her modesty. She also alleged that the accused had been regularly indulging in making indecent gestures at her and also that she had been threatened with dire consequences. On the fateful day, Jasveer, the husband of the deceased, had gone to the other village with his two children. Only the child witnesses Gurdas and the deceased were present in the house and the accused appears to have got wind of the fact that the deceased was alone in the house with the small boy. He went to the house of Smt. Paramjeet and knocked the door, who unsuspectedly opened the same, on which, the accused came in and put a belt around her neck. He dragged her into the Kotha, where fodder was stored. He went to the house of Smt. Paramjeet and knocked the door, who unsuspectedly opened the same, on which, the accused came in and put a belt around her neck. He dragged her into the Kotha, where fodder was stored. The child Gurdas woke up on hearing the commotion and saw the incident. He saw his mother struggling with the accused, who strangled her. Thereafter, the accused put the dead body on the cot, covered it with a shawl and ran away. The child then rushed to the house of his grandfather Jhanda Singh and told him of the gruesome incident. Initially the accused himself conducted cross-examination from the child, on which, the trial court noted the demeanor of the child witness, who started crying and clearly alleged that the accused himself was responsible for the murder. The witness mustered courage and told the accused that he came to his house and killed his mother. Thereafter, the defence counsel was permitted to further cross-examine the child witness. Nothing significant was elicited in the entire crossexamination, which can detract from the evidentiary worth of the child witness's testimony. The fact that the child gave a truthful narration of the incident is duly corroborated from the promptly lodged FIR (Ex.P/3), which was registered by Jhanda Singh with the SHO, Police Station Sangaria at 10.00 a.m. on 08.12.2013 and wherein, all the gory details of the incident were mentioned. 9. We have gone through the evidence of the Medical Officer Dr. Navneet Sharma (P.W.6), who stated that numerous marks of the injuries (ligature marks) were visible on the neck of the deceased when postmortem was carried out. The respiratory organs were congested. Three uniform depressions were noticed below the neck, which are indicative of the fact that a belt like object must have been used to strangulate the deceased. Blood had diffused in the neck muscles underneath the ligature marks. The cornua of the hyoid bone had been fractured. The wind pipe was full of blood. The doctor gave a clear opinion that the cause of death of Smt. Paramjeet was strangulation caused by the compression of neck. 10. Jhanda Singh (P.W.2), being the first informant, stated in his evidence that the child Gurdas came running to him in the morning at about 5 o'clock with his aunt Seeto and told him that Vinod Kumar had killed his mother Smt. Paramjeet. 10. Jhanda Singh (P.W.2), being the first informant, stated in his evidence that the child Gurdas came running to him in the morning at about 5 o'clock with his aunt Seeto and told him that Vinod Kumar had killed his mother Smt. Paramjeet. The witness then rushed to the house of Jasveer and saw the dead body of Paramjeet lying on the cot. He stated that the Investigating Officer recovered broken bangles from the place of incident. 11. The Investigating Officer Gopalram (P.W.5) gave statement regarding various steps taken during investigation. Nothing significant was elicited in his cross-examination. 12. Having noted the significant features from the evidence available on record, we are of the firm view that the child witnesses Gurdas (P.W.1) has given clinching evidence establishing the fact that the accused appellant was responsible in the murder of his mother Smt. Paramjeet Kaur. The child had no reason whatsoever to falsely implicate the appellant. The appellant was involved in an earlier incident of trespassing and outraging the modesty of the deceased, for which the FIR (Ex.P/15) and the chargesheet (Ex.P/16) were proved by the prosecution. This fact gives clear evidence regarding the evil motive of the appellant. The evidence of the child witness (P.W.1) is thoroughly corroborated by the evidence of Jhanda Singh (P.W.2), Seeta Kaur (P.W.8) and the testimony of the Medical Officer Dr. Navneet Sharma (P.W.6). Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has duly proved the guilt of the accused by leading cogent and clinching ocular evidence of the child witness, which is well corroborated by the other material pieces of evidence discussed above. The trial court was, thus, perfectly justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant as above by the impugned judgment dated 06.02.2016, which does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference in this appeal. 13. As a result of the above discussion, the instant appeal against conviction fails and is hereby dismissed as such.