Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1664 (RAJ)

Keshar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2021-09-07

RAMESHWAR VYAS, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT Rameshwar Vyas, J. - The appellant - Keshar Singh has preferred the present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. through Superintendent, Central Jail, Udaipur against the judgment of conviction dated 13.06.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 123/2011, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as under :- Offence Sentence U/s 307 I.P.C. Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 01 year additional imprisonment. U/s 324 I.P.C. 3 years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months additional imprisonment. U/s 326 I.P.C. 10 years imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months additional imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.10.2011, the victim Dashrath Singh (P.W. 17), a boy aged about 5 years, was attempted to be immolated before a temple by the accused-appellant - Keshar Singh, a relative of the victim. In this process, the accused-appellant inflicted four axe blows on the head and face of the victim. On hearing cries of the victim, Chandan Singh (P.W. 2) came to rescue him. He managed to shift the boy to the hospital with the help of other witnesses, namely, first informant Hukam Singh, (P.W. 1) and Ms. Naina alias Badami (P.W.3). The victim was referred to higher centre i.e. Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer where he was treated as an indoor patient. The police was immediately informed by Hukam Singh (P.W. 1), who is the brother of Chandan Singh. 3. After registering the FIR No. 332/2011 (Ex.P/2) for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C., the case was investigated by the police promptly. During the course of investigation, the accused-appellant was arrested on the same day i.e. 20.10.2011. 4. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 324, 326 & 307 of I.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate, who committed the same to the Court of Sessions. 5. Learned Sessions Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offences under Sections 324, 326 & 307 I.P.C. to the accused-appellant who denied the same and opted trial. 6. 5. Learned Sessions Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offences under Sections 324, 326 & 307 I.P.C. to the accused-appellant who denied the same and opted trial. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 40 documents to prove its case. 7. The witness Hukam Singh (P.W.I) is the lodger of FIR who also accompanied injured Dashrath Singh (P.W. 17) to the hospital. 8. Chandan Singh (P.W. 2) is an eye-witness who succeeded to save the boy from the clutches of the accused-appellant. 9. Ms. Naina alias Badami (P.W.3) is the daughter of the accused-appellant, who reached the spot just after the incident. 10. Govind Singh (P.W.4), Khim Singh (P.W.5), Koop Singh (P.W.6) and Prem Singh (P.W.7) are attesting witnesses of the various seizure memos. 11. Narayan Singh (P.W.8) and Smt. Mohini Devi (P.W.9) are father and mother of the victim, respectively, who were not present at the time of incident but affirmed the incident. 12. Indra Singh (P.W.10) and Panna Singh (P.W.11) are hearsay witnesses who stated to have met the injured in the hospital. 13. Ganeshlal, Head Constable (P.W. 12) was In-charge of Malkhana. Satyendra Kumar, Constable (P.W. 14) was carrier of sealed packets of samples to the FSL, Udaipur. Dharmendra Kumar, Constable (P.W. 15) collected the medical treatment papers from the hospital. 14. Narpat Singh (P.W. 16) was posted as S.H.O. Police Station Bhim at the time of incident and he also investigated the case. 15. Dashrath Singh (P.W. 17) is victim himself. 16. Dr. Indrapal Singh (P.W. 13) was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Center, Bhim, who prepared the injury report of the victim (Ex.P/10) on the same day and opined that the Injury Nos. 1 and 2 on the person of the victim were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 17. Dr. Balvinder Singh (P.W. 18) was posted as Associate Professor at J.L.N. Medical College, Ajmer, where the injured was treated. He operated upon the head injuries of the injured and found that these injuries had been inflicted by a sharp weapon which were grievous in nature and sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. 18. 17. Dr. Balvinder Singh (P.W. 18) was posted as Associate Professor at J.L.N. Medical College, Ajmer, where the injured was treated. He operated upon the head injuries of the injured and found that these injuries had been inflicted by a sharp weapon which were grievous in nature and sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. 18. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case and was innocent. However, the accused-appellant did not produce any oral or documentary evidence in his defence. 19. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 324, 326 and 307 I.P.C., as above vide judgment dated 13.06.2013. Hence this appeal. 20. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 21. During the course of arguments, Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no case under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the appellant. No one has seen the incident. As per the defence story, the injuries were sustained by the injured on account of falling on the stones while playing with other children. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the sentences of life imprisonment is highly excessive and disproportionate looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the injured Dashrath Singh. The incident in the present case took place about ten years back. The accused-appellant has remained in jail for more than nine years. He, thus, implores the Court to reduce the sentences awarded to the appellant from life imprisonment to ten years. 22. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the appeal has contended that the prosecution has produced enough reliable evidence to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 324, 326 & 307 I.P.C. He further submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured Dashrath Singh were inflicted by the accused-appellant by a sharp edged weapon with intent to sacrifice the child before the deity. The trial court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 324, 326 & 307 I.P.C. He further submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured Dashrath Singh were inflicted by the accused-appellant by a sharp edged weapon with intent to sacrifice the child before the deity. He further submitted that as per the medical evidence on record, the injuries caused to the injured, in the ordinary course of nature, were sufficient to cause death. The injured suffered a lot of pain and agony after the incident also. His head injuries were operated upon by the neurosurgeon. The act of the accused-appellant shows that he is of criminal mentality and tried to offer a five years old, minor child, who happens to be his own relative, to the deity by way of human sacrifice. He, thus, prayed that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the accused-appellant does not deserve any leniency. 23. Having considered the submissions made at bar and going through the record of the trial court as well as judgment dated 13.06.2013 impugned herein, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. The prosecution has adduced reliable and credible oral as well as documentary evidence to substantiate the offences charged against the accused-appellant. The injured Dashrath Singh himself appeared in the witness box as P.W. 17. and stated that in the day hours, he and Dungar Singh were playing in the temple. He identified the accused-appellant as his grandfather in relation. The accused - Keshar Singh took him and his son Dunger Singh to the temple of Mataji, where the accused gave him coconut as Prasad. The accused inflicted an axe blow on his head in the temple. He inflicted total four blows with the axe on his person. 24. During the examination of P.W. 17, the trial court also noted that there were prominent marks of injuries on his head below left ear and on left cheek. P.W. 17 further stated that he became unconscious after sustaining the injuries. In the cross-examination, he categorically denied the suggestion of the defence that he fell down while playing and got injured. He also denied that the accused Keshar Singh came on the spot to help him. P.W. 17 further stated that he became unconscious after sustaining the injuries. In the cross-examination, he categorically denied the suggestion of the defence that he fell down while playing and got injured. He also denied that the accused Keshar Singh came on the spot to help him. Nothing substantial has come out from the cross-examination of this witness so as to discredit his testimony which is unimpeachable. 25. The prosecution story has also been proved by other prosecution witness i.e. P.W. 2 - Chandan Singh, who, in his statement categorically stated on oath that he saw the accused inflicting axe blows to Dashrath Singh. He also stated that the accused Keshar Singh was offering the victim's blood to the deity. When he went towards the temple, the accused Keshar Singh also threw stones towards him. The daughter of accused came there and on seeing her, accused fled away from the spot. He and Naina (daughter of accused Keshar Singh) took the injured Dashrath Singh to his hosue where his elder brother also came and then, they carried the child to the hospital. In the cross-examination, he also denied the suggestion of the defence that injured Dashrath Singh sustained injuries due to fall from a tree while playing. He reiterated that the accused Keshar Singh was inflicting injuries to Dashrath Singh by an axe. He admitted that there was no enmity between his family and the family of the accused. He also denied the suggestion that occasionally the accused would suffer bouts of insanity. 26. P.W. 3 - Ms. Naina alias Badami, who is daughter of the accused, also supported the prosecution story. She specifically stated in her statement that she went on the spot after hearing the cries of the child. When she went there, she saw her father holding an axe in his hands and blood was oozing out from the head of Dashrath Singh, the injured. She lifted the boy and asked her father to go away. Hukam Singh and Chandan Singh also came there and took Dashrath Singh to the Bhim Hospital. In the cross-examination, she stated that it was true that she did not see her father inflicting injuries to Dashrath Singh. 27. The version of P.W. 3 - Naina is absolutely true. She reached the scene of the spot just after the incident took place. Her statement is absolutely correct. In the cross-examination, she stated that it was true that she did not see her father inflicting injuries to Dashrath Singh. 27. The version of P.W. 3 - Naina is absolutely true. She reached the scene of the spot just after the incident took place. Her statement is absolutely correct. The scene, she witnessed, after reaching the spot clearly affirms the statement given by the injured (P.W. 17 - Dashrath Singh) and Chandan Singh (P.W. 2). The incident was reported to the police by Hukam Singh (P.W. 1) without any delay. The narration in the written report (Ex.P/1) gives out an absolutely true and correct version of the incident, which corroborates the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded on oath. The fact of causing injuries by the accused Keshar Singh to injured Dashrath Singh was also communicated to mother & father of the injured and others. 28. The injured was initially brought to the hospital at Bhim, where Dr. Indrapal Singh (P.W. 13) examined him and prepared the injury report (Ex.P/10). As per statement of P.W. 13 - Dr. Indrapal Singh, he found one incised wound on the left temporal region of scalp, one incised wound on left cheek, one incised wound on left occipital region of scalp and one incised wound below the left ear of the injured. The left ear lobule of the injured was also amputed. He further stated that looking to the grievous nature of injuries, the injured was referred to the higher centre for further treatment. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion of the defence that above injuries could have been caused due to fall on sharp stones. 29. Dr. Balvinder Singh (P.W. 18) in his statement has described the process adopted by him while operating upon the head injuries of the injured. As per his statement, the head injuries of the boy, which involved neuro surgery, were caused by sharp weapon and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 30. Thus, the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses has been fully corroborated by the medical evidence also. There is no merit in the suggestion of the defence that the grievous injuries on the head of the injured were possible to be caused in case, he fell from a height upon sharp objects like stones. 30. Thus, the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses has been fully corroborated by the medical evidence also. There is no merit in the suggestion of the defence that the grievous injuries on the head of the injured were possible to be caused in case, he fell from a height upon sharp objects like stones. This suggestion is of no significance looking at the availability of the direct evidence against the accused-appellant regarding the circumstances in which the injuries were inflicted. 31. The prosecution case has been further substantiated by other corroborative piece of evidence in the form of statement of the Investigation Officer i.e. P.W. 16 - Narpat Singh who in his statement categorically stated that he seized bloodstained Kurta of the injured vide Ex.P/4 and bloodstained clothes of accused Keshar Singh vide Ex.P/6, which were sealed and sent to the F.S.L. for chemical and serological examination. The report of the F.S.L. (Ex.P/40) has also been produced, as per which, human blood of TV group was found on the blood smeared soil, Dhoti, axe and Kurta. As per the forwarding letter, while sending the seized articles to F.S.L., the packet marked as 'C relates to Dhoti of the accused and the packet marked as 'X' relates to Kurta of injured. In this case, the bloodstained axe was also seized by the police and when got examined by F.S.L., human blood of TV group was found on it. The photographs of the place of incident and the injured were also taken and proved during trial. As per cross-examination of the Investigation Officer - Narpat Singh (P.W. 16), he reached at the spot after half an hour. The accused was arrested on the same day. As per his statement, the accused was got medically examined and found to be medically fit. The witnesses of various seizure memos have also supported the prosecution story. 32. There is nothing on record so as to disbelieve the evidence produced by the prosecution, which is absolutely reliable, trustworthy and remained unimpeached after passing through the process of cross-examination. The defence has miserably failed to rebut the prosecution case which has been proved by the cogent and credible oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial court. 33. The defence has miserably failed to rebut the prosecution case which has been proved by the cogent and credible oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial court. 33. Regarding the nature of offence, we are not in agreement with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is not proved against the appellant. Repeated injuries were inflicted by the accused-appellant on the vital parts of a boy i.e. victim, of only five years of age by a sharp weapon like axe with a motive to sacrifice him before the deity. The offence was committed in a planned gruesome manner with an utterly reprehensive objective. A civilized person cannot imagine such type of heinous criminal behaviour on part of the accused-appellant, who happens to be a close relative of the child. The accused-appellant managed to win the confidence of the child before inflicting injuries to him. He was given coconut as Prasad before attempting to kill him by way of a sacrificial offering to his local deity. The circumstances available on record clearly suggest that it was an attempt to murder and nothing less than that. Thus, the trial court has committed no error while convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. Hence, there is no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. 34. So far as quantum of sentences is concerned, looking to the motive behind the offence, nature of injuries inflicted to the injured, age of the injured child and the impact of such type of offence on the society, we are of the view that the appellant does not deserve any sympathy. He has to suffer the maximum punishment for his act so that a lesson goes to the society that human sacrifices will no longer be tolerated in any form and such type of criminals have to suffer for their deeds. Hence, we are not convinced with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant for reduction of sentences awarded to the appellant from life imprisonment to ten years. 35. Resultantly, the criminal appeal fails and is dismissed as such. The judgment dated 13.06.2013 passed by the trial court is affirmed and upheld. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith. 36. 35. Resultantly, the criminal appeal fails and is dismissed as such. The judgment dated 13.06.2013 passed by the trial court is affirmed and upheld. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith. 36. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we also direct that the District Legal Services Authority, Rajsamand shall compensate the victim adequately for the loss suffered by him on account of this incident under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011. While determining the quantum of compensation, the compensation already received by the victim in pursuance of the verdict of the trial court shall be taken into consideration.