Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1215 (RAJ)

Rohtash S/o Shri Budh Ram v. State Of Rajasthan

2024-09-09

MUNNURI LAXMAN, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J: 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal of the Appellant may kindly ordered to be allowed by way of setting aside the Judgment and Conviction Order-Dated 19.04.2017 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, in Original Sessions Case No.43/2015 (C.I.S. No.45/2015). Further the accused Appellant may kindly be declared acquitted from the charges leveled against him. The record of the Court below may also kindly be called for. Any other appropriate order or relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the eyes of law, may kindly be passed in favor of the Appellant.” 2. The accused-appellant laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, in Sessions Case No.43/2015 (CIS No.45/2015), whereby the present accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below: Conviction under Section Sentence Fine 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to undergo further One Year S.I. 3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, on 22.09.2015, one Mansingh (complainant) submitted a written report before the Police Station, Gogamedi stating therein that the complainant was working at Bhadra Gaushala and as usual, on the said date, he reached Gaushala at 7:30 a.m. It was further stated that on 18.09.2015, his father, namely, Rajendra went to sell the female camel (Utani) at Gogamedi; the complainant’s mother Kalawati, wife Sunita were at the agricultural field; grandfather Sukhram was sleeping in the house, and at that time, the complainant’s son (Tony), who at the relevant time aged 7 years was with the complainant’s grandfather. 3.1. At 11:30 a.m., the complainant received a telephonic call from his cousin (Uncle’s son-Ashok @ Kishor), to the effect that at around 10-10:30 a.m., an unknown person murdered the complainant’s grandfather Sukhram, by inflicting injuries on his head and neck by using a sharp-edged weapon. Upon which, the complainant rushed towards his home at Village Gheu and upon reaching there, his minor son Tony informed that Rohtash(accused-appellant), living in neighbourhood, and armed with an Axe, had entered the house, and as per him (minor son), the accused-appellant was the person, who murdered the complainant’s grandfather. 3.2. Upon which, the complainant rushed towards his home at Village Gheu and upon reaching there, his minor son Tony informed that Rohtash(accused-appellant), living in neighbourhood, and armed with an Axe, had entered the house, and as per him (minor son), the accused-appellant was the person, who murdered the complainant’s grandfather. 3.2. It was also stated in the report that at around a month ago (preceding the date of lodging of the report), the accused-appellant, while standing in front of the complainant’s house, abused his grandfather, whereupon, the complainant’s grandfather slapped the accused-appellant; the same led to an enmity between the accused-appellant and the deceased, and thereafter, the accused-appellant committed the murder of the complainant’s grandfather. 3.3. On the basis of the aforementioned report, an FIR bearing No.200/2015 for the offence under Section 302 IPC was registered, and the investigating commenced accordingly. After due investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC and the trial commenced thereafter. The learned Trial framed charge against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the same upon being read over to the accused-appellant, was denied by him and he claimed trial, and the trial accordingly commenced. 3.4. During the trial, the prosecution produced 17 witnesses and exhibited 44 documents; in defence, 01 witness was produced and 01 document was exhibited for examination. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein while pleading not guilty, the accused-appellant stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. 3.5. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the present accused-appellant, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.04.2017, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accused-appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that as per the written report (Ex.P/4), the complainant was informed by the his cousin (PW-2-Ashok @ Kishor) that deceased was killed by some unknown person, but during the trial, the complainant improved his version, rendering his testimony contradictory. It was further submitted that the FIR was filed with delay of 7 hours by the complainant, without any sufficient explanation for such delay. 4.1. It was also submitted that the eye witness PW. It was further submitted that the FIR was filed with delay of 7 hours by the complainant, without any sufficient explanation for such delay. 4.1. It was also submitted that the eye witness PW. 14-Tony was a seven years old boy, and thus, his testimony, in the given circumstances, cannot be termed as a strong evidence, so as to convict the accused-appellant for the crime in question. It was further submitted that the testimonies of the other two eye witnesses PW.1 and PW.3 also show major contradictions, and that, they were family members of the deceased, and therefore, most of the witnesses are interested witnesses and thus, they cannot be said to be the reliable witnesses.4.2. It was further submitted that PW.2 was a blind person and was not present at the time of incident; he stated to have heard about the incident in question from PW.1 and PW. 3, and therefore, the same was ought to have been considered by the learned Trial Court as a hearsay evidence, and thus, the same also was not sufficient to convict the accused-appellants for the crime in question. It was also submitted that the deceased’s blood group was also not duly identified, and as per the FSL report, the inconclusive blood group was found. 4.3. It was further submitted that at the time of incident in question, the accused-appellant was in some other village namely Changoi to bring his sister from her in-law’s house, in connection with birth of his child and he returned back on 24.09.2015, while the incident in question took place on 22.09.2015; the said story was supported by D.W.1-Santosh, and therefore it is clear that the accused-appellant was not present at the place of occurrence, at the relevant time. 4.4. It was also submitted that the accused-appellant is behind the bar for last about 9 years. 5. 4.4. It was also submitted that the accused-appellant is behind the bar for last about 9 years. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellant, while submitting that in all, there were three eyewitnesses of the incident in question, and they all have clearly stated in their testimonies that the accused-appellant had murdered the deceased and the reason of murder was stated to be the prior enmity between the deceased and the accused-appellant, owing to the fact that at a point of time, upon being abused by the accused-appellant, the deceased had slapped him, and therefore, the accused-appellant was having a clear intention to murder the deceased. 5.1. It was further submitted that a total of 6 injuries were caused to the deceased by the accused-appellant, out of which, injuries nos. 1 to 5 were sufficient to cause death, and the same has been supported by PW.15- Dr. Mahaveer Jakhar who conducted the postmortem (Ex.P/39) of the deceased. 5.2. It was also submitted that the weapon (Axe) was recovered by the police authority on the basis of the information given by the accused-appellant in the presence of the motbir. It was further submitted that as per the FSL report, the human blood was detected on the shirt of the accused-appellant. Therefore, as per the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC vide the impugned judgment. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 7. This Court observes that the allegation against the accused-appellant was that he came to the deceased’s house while carrying an Axe and murdered the deceased, whereafter the complaint was lodged followed by conducting of the investigation. After conclusion of the trial, the accused-appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced as above. 8. This Court further observes that in the present case, there were three eyewitnesses namely PW.1-Vikram, PW.3-Naresh Kumar and PW.14-Tony. 8.1. On a perusal of the testimony of the PW. After conclusion of the trial, the accused-appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced as above. 8. This Court further observes that in the present case, there were three eyewitnesses namely PW.1-Vikram, PW.3-Naresh Kumar and PW.14-Tony. 8.1. On a perusal of the testimony of the PW. 1 & PW.3, this Court finds that the said witnesses deposed that when they came from the bus station, and reached the street of the deceased’s house, they saw the accused-appellant attacking the deceased by Axe and causing injuries on the body of the deceased, whereupon the said witnesses shouted at the accused-appellant, upon which he ran away. It was further stated that thereafter they went to PW.4-Ashok @ Kishor and narrated the whole incident to him; the entire incident was stated to the complainant-Mansingh (PW.5). 8.2. This Court finds that there are minor contradictions of the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, but it was clearly stated by the said witnesses that the accused-appellant caused injuries to the deceased. 9. This Court also observes that as per the testimony of the eyewitness PW.14-Tony, who, at the relevant time, was aged 7 years, and was with the deceased and his younger sister at home; the deceased was sleeping when the accused-appellant came; the said witness deposed that on the relevant day, he did not go to the school because it was a holiday; he further stated that the accused-appellant came armed with an Axe and hit the deceased on neck, shoulder and head; at that time, he and his sister started crying loudly, which was heard by PW. 1 and PW.3, whereupon they reached the place of incident, after which, the accused-appellant ran away from the spot. 9.1. This Court also observes that the in the entire testimony of the PW.14 he stated clearly that the accused-appellant caused death of the deceased and no material contradiction, so as to cast a shadow of doubt on his version. 10. A perusal of the testimony of PW.2-Ashok @ Kishore, who gave the information of the incident in question to complainant (PW.5), reveals that at the relevant time, PW.1 and PW.3 came and stated that the accused-appellant murdered the deceased and thereafter, they made a call to PW.5, while giving the phone to him, whereupon the entire incident was narrated by PW.2 to PW.5. As per the testimony of PW.5-Man Singh, when he received the information from PW.2 and at time of the incident, PW.4 was present at the place of incident; he further stated that at an earlier point of time, the accused-appellant abused the deceased in front of his house under the influence of alcohol on which the deceased slapped the accused-appellants 2-3 times. 11. This Court further observes that the testimonies of the eye witnesses corroborated with the testimonies of the other important witnesses and there was no material contradiction therein, and all the three eye witnesses namely PW.1-Vikram, PW.3- Naresh Kumar and PW.14-Tony and complainant-Man Singh (PW5) as well as other important witness PW.2-Ashok @ Kishore stated that at an earlier point of time, the accused-appellant abused the deceased in front of his house under the influence of alcohol on which his deceased slapped the accused-appellant 2-3 times, and therefore, it is proved that the accused-appellant was having prior enmity with the deceased, and with the intention of taking revenge, he committed the crime in question.12. A perusal of the testimony of PW. 15-Dr. Mahaveer Jakhar, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased and prepared Ex.P/39, reveals that of all 6 injuries caused to deceased, 5 injuries were sufficient to cause his death. He also stated that some sharp-edged weapon was used to caused such injuries. The details of the said injuries are reproduced as hereunder:- 13. This Court also observes that on the basis of the information given by the accused-appellant, the Axe (weapon used to commit crime in question) was recovered by the police authority from the field. It has also come on record that blood was detected on the weapon used to commit the crime in question, recovery whereof, was also supported by PW.6- Ram Singh. 14. This Court also observes that PW. 17- Guru Bhupendra Singh (Investigation Officer) and PW.11- Pankaj Kumar (S.I.) have fully supported the prosecution story and the recovery of weapon, clothes, preparation of Naksha Mauka, and other things, which as per them were done as per the law, and the entire investigation, clearly reveals that the accused-appellant caused the murder of the deceased. 15. 17- Guru Bhupendra Singh (Investigation Officer) and PW.11- Pankaj Kumar (S.I.) have fully supported the prosecution story and the recovery of weapon, clothes, preparation of Naksha Mauka, and other things, which as per them were done as per the law, and the entire investigation, clearly reveals that the accused-appellant caused the murder of the deceased. 15. This Court further observes that the testimonies of all the three eyewitnesses, namely, PW.1, PW.3, PW.14 and PW.5 (complainant) as well as the other important witness PW.2, corroborated with each other, and no material contradiction was found in their version to the effect that the accused-appellant caused murder of the deceased because of the prior enmity, which arose from the fact that at an earlier point of time, the accused-appellant abused the deceased in front of his house under the influence of alcohol on which the deceased slapped the accused-appellant 2-3 times. 15.1. This Court also observes that PW. 15 doctor stated that the injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon and the police authority recovered the Axe with the blood detected on the same, and that such recovery was made on the information given by the accused-appellant, and thus, on a conjoint consideration of the material available on record, the same are clearly a corroborative evidence against the accused-appellant. 15.2. This Court thus observes that it is clear that the accused-appellant had an intention to commit the crime in question, and the said reason was the prior enmity between the accused-appellant and the deceased, as mentioned above; it is also clear from the record that the crime in question was committed by the accused-appellant with premeditation because, at the relevant time, he was carrying the Axe for committing the crime in question and also caused the injuries, in all 6, out which 5 were caused on the vital parts of the deceased’s body, and were sufficient to cause the death in question, and thus, it is amply clear that for committing the brutal murder in question, the accused-appellant was having a clear intention, and therefore, this Court finds that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge of murder against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 16. 16. Thus, on the basis of above analysis of the documentary and oral evidence so available on record, this Court do not find any illegality or perversity in the conviction of the appellant, as recorded by the trial court. The learned Trial Court has gone through the evidence carefully and this Court has also undertaken the same exercise, and in our opinion, the learned Trial Court has committed no error whatsoever, in coming to the conclusion that the accused-appellant had committed the alleged offence. 17. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the conviction as well as the order of sentence dated 19.04.2017 passed by learned Trial Court in Session Case No.43/2015 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Rohtash) is upheld and the present appeal is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned forthwith.