Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1072 (RAJ)

Raju S/o Shubh Ram v. State, Through P. P.

2024-08-07

MUNNURI LAXMAN, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J: 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2019 passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge No.2, Rajgarh District Churu in Sessions Case No. 11/2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the appellant may kindly be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.” 2. The accused-appellant laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Rajgarh, District Churu, in Sessions Case No.11/2016 CIS No.23/2016 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Raju), whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below: Offence under Section Sentence Fine 449 IPC 10 Years’ R.I. Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further 03 Months’ Imprisonment 455 IPC 07 Years’ R.I. Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further 03 Months’ Imprisonment 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo further 06 Months’ Imprisonment. 3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the counsel for the accused-appellant, are that on 19.12.2015, at around 3:15 p.m., one Kesardevi (deceased) was on her way to pay money towards purchase of milk, when accused-appellant Raju who was with lathi forcefully caught her, upon which Kesardevi yelled for someone to save her, and after managing to release herself from his clutches ran inside the house of one Rajveer Singh (PW.5); the accused-appellant Raju also entered the said house while running behind Kesardevi. Hearing the shouts, complainant Rajkumar, his brother-in-law Kamal Singh, Naresh son of Kesar and Sandeep son of Naresh all ran towards the direction of Rajveer’s house and after reaching, called out for Raju; when at the same time, the accused-appellant attacked Kesardevi with the use of the lathi, whereafter he climbed the baad and ran towards his own house. Though he was chased by the witnesses, however, he was not apprehended by them. 3.1. Though he was chased by the witnesses, however, he was not apprehended by them. 3.1. Thereafter, the victim was taken to Rajgarh Government Hospital, whereupon immediately the victim was referred to Hisar, and while on the way to Hisar, Kesardevi passed away and she was brought back to Rajgarh Hospital, subsequently the information regarding the incident was given to the police and they arrived at the Hospital; at that night, however the report (Ex.P/1) regarding the incident could be given in the morning when deceased’s brother and her parents arrived. 3.2. Thereafter, on the basis of the written report, FIR No. 293/2015 (Ex.P/12) was registered at Police Station, Hameervaas for the offence under Section 302 IPC and after completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused-appellant under Sections 302, 449 and 455 IPC on 06.02.2016, whereafter the trial commenced and the charges levelled against the accused-appellant were explained to him and the same were denied by him, while pleading innocence. During the trial, the prosecution had produced 15 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents for examination; however, no witness or document has been produced in defence. 3.3. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2019, as above. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that there was delay in registration of the FIR since as per the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the police had arrived at the Hospital on the day of the incident itself, yet no FIR was registered by them, but the same was registered on the next day. 4.1. It was further submitted that the deceased had sustained a total of four injuries on her body as per postmortem report (Ex.P/14) and as per the testimonies of both the eye-witnesses P.W.5-Rajveer Singh & P.W.6-Lechama, the accused-appellant had attacked the deceased only once, yet there were other injuries present on her body and for the same no further reason was provided by the said eye-witnesses, and therefore there is a clear contradiction between the medical report and the testimonies of the eye-witnesses. 4.2. In furtherance, as per the statements of P.W.11 Dr. 4.2. In furtherance, as per the statements of P.W.11 Dr. Sajjan, the injury on the head of the deceased could have been caused by throwing a stone or any heavy thing, and thus, learned counsel submitted that it was not necessary that the injury caused to the deceased came from the blow of the lathi itself. 4.3. It was also submitted that there were other contradictions with respect to the statements of P.W.5 and P.W.6, as though P.W.5 has completely denied that he had ever having any kind of dispute with the accused-appellant with respect to the baad, however P.W.6 had clearly deposed in her statement that P.W.5 and the accused-appellant had prior unsettled disputes, thus clearly due to the prior dispute between the accused-appellant and the P.W.5 a false story of the incident had been concocted to put the false blame on the accused-appellant. 4.4. It was further submitted that the recovery so made of the lathi (weapon in question) was made from an open space (field) and the field did not belong to the accused-appellant and there is no evidence on record to showcase that the field was belonging to the accused-appellant. 4.5. It was also submitted that the incident in question took place was sudden and without any pre-meditation or pre-planning on the part of the accused-appellant, thus, falling under the Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC, therefore, the impugned conviction under Section 302 IPC of the accused-appellant is liable to be modified to a conviction under Section 304-I IPC. In this regard, reliance was placed on the following judgments: (a) Keshia Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1195 of 2003 decided on 12.08.2011 by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court); and (b) Shankar Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No.70/1987, decided on 26.03.2010 by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench). 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellant, submitted that there are two eye-witnesses to the incident in question i.e. PW.5 & PW.6 who saw the accused-appellant attacking the deceased with a single blow of lathi on her head. 5.1. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellant, submitted that there are two eye-witnesses to the incident in question i.e. PW.5 & PW.6 who saw the accused-appellant attacking the deceased with a single blow of lathi on her head. 5.1. It was further submitted that there was no delay in registration of the FIR as the incident took place on 19.12.2015 and even the police had come to the hospital on that very night and asked to give a report, when the husband of the deceased and her maternal family arrived, hence, the FIR came to be registered on the very next day i.e. 20.12.2015. 5.2. It was also submitted that as per the statement of P.W.9-Rajkumar, the accused-appellant had on earlier occasions looked at the deceased with ill intentions for which deceased had complained and the accused-appellant had been scolded for the same; furthermore, as per the statement of P.W.5, when the deceased used to go to the water tank, the accused-appellant had created troubles for her on an earlier occasion, thus the accused-appellant had a clear motive to commit the crime in question. 5.3. It was further submitted that the recovery of lathi (weapon in question) was made at the instance of the information provided by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the same was done in the presence of two independent witnesses (Motbir) P.W.12-Mukesh Kumar and P.W.10-Mahendra; further, from the said lathi, human blood was also recovered. 5.4. It was further submitted that as per the postmortem report as well as the statement of P.W.11 Dr. Sajjan, a total of four injuries were caused to the deceased; however, the injury resulting into the death of the deceased was the head injury, which was sufficient to cause such death. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 7. This Court observes that on 19.12.2015, deceased had gone to P.W.5-Rajveer Singh’s house in order to make payment for milk, and while she was in his house, she was followed by the accused-appellant with a lathi in his hand and had been struck on the head with the same, whereafter the deceased fell on the spot and the accused-appellant ran away. The deceased was then taken for treatment to Rajgarh Government Hospital and from there to Hisar Hospital, however, the deceased passed away on the way to the said Hospital and was brought back to Rajgarh. On 20.12.2015, the FIR was lodged, followed by investigation and filing of chargesheet and the case was committed for trial and vide judgment dated 06.12.2019 the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as above. 8. This Court further observes that in the present case, there were two eye witnesses to the incident in question i.e. P.W.5 & P.W.6; as per the statement of PW.5, immediately after arrival of the deceased at his house, the accused-appellant also entered the house, whereafter, altercation took place between PW.5 and the accused-appellant, due to which, the accused-appellant pushed the said witness to the ground and he fell down; thereafter, the accused-appellant inflicted a single blow by lathi on the deceased’s head. 8.1. Furthermore, as per the statement of PW.6, the accused-appellant did not talk to anyone at the time of the incident in question, and immediately upon entering the house of PW.6, attacked the deceased and inflicted a single blow by lathi on the head of the deceased. 8.2. Thus, in the statements of these two witnesses, though there were certain minor contradictions as to the events that took place at the time of the incident in question, but both the said witnesses have deposed about infliction of the single blow by lathi on the head of the deceased, resulting into falling down of the deceased on the ground; whereafter, the accused-appellant ran towards the railway tracks. 9. This Court also observes that as per the postmortem report (Ex.P/14) as well as the statement of P.W.11, the deceased sustained four injuries and it was the injury on the head which resulted into her demise, however she did not have a lot of blood loss due to the said injury, and thus the statement of both the eye witnesses clearly co-relate with the statement of the PW.11 and the postmortem report (Ex.P/14). This Court further observes that as per the statement of P.W.11, there was a possibility of the injuries No.1 to 3 found on the body of the deceased to be a result of falling down and hitting on the corner of the cot (chaarpai). 10. This Court further observes that as per the statement of P.W.11, there was a possibility of the injuries No.1 to 3 found on the body of the deceased to be a result of falling down and hitting on the corner of the cot (chaarpai). 10. This Court also observes that as per Ex.P/10 i.e. the recovery memo (Fard Baramadgi), lathi (weapon in question) was recovered from an open space (field) and that blood was detected upon the said lathi; however, as per the FSL Report (Ex.P/22), the blood was too small in quantity to reach a conclusion regarding its origin and grouping; furthermore, the said recovery had been made in the presence of two independent witnesses (Motbir) P.W.10-Mukesh Kumar and P.W.12-Mahendra and the said witnesses were also examined during the Trial. 11. This Court further observes that as per the statement of P.W.7 Rohtaash (brother of Rajveer), the accused-appellant had called him and said that the deceased was at the house of P.W.5 and was not allowed to go there, thus she was to be brought out of the said house; other than this, as per the statement of complainant (P.W.9-Rajkumar), he and few other persons were sitting on baakhal in front of his house and according to him, the deceased went into the house of P.W.5 and later on, shouts were heard, whereafter, the accused-appellant had been seen running away from the house of P.W.5 by jumping from the baad. 12. This Court also observes that as per the statement of P.W.9 the accused-appellant had, on earlier occasions also, troubled the deceased, and for the same had been scolded; in furtherance, as per statement of P.W.5, the accused-appellant had made it difficult for her whenever she came at the water tank, and thus, it is clear that the accused-appellant had prior issues with the deceased. This Court further observes that the entire record clearly reflects that the deceased and the accused-appellant were having prior enmity, which in the given circumstances, appears to be the reason of causing the murder of the deceased, thus fulfilling the essential elements of the definition of ‘murder’ as contained in Section 300 IPC. 13. This Court also observes that as per the statements of the eye-witnesses i.e. PW.5 & PW.6, the postmortem report, and the statement of PW.11-Dr. 13. This Court also observes that as per the statements of the eye-witnesses i.e. PW.5 & PW.6, the postmortem report, and the statement of PW.11-Dr. Sajjan, as well as the recovery so made and the statement of P.W.7 & P.W. 9, this Court is of the opinion that it is clearly established that there was an intention on the part of the accused-appellant to commit the crime in question. 14. This Court observes that the judgments cited on behalf of the accused-appellant do not render any assistance to his case. 15. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the accused-appellant in the present criminal appeal. 16. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed, while upholding the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2019 passed in Sessions Case No.11/2016 CIS No.23/2016 by the learned Trial Court. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.