Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1447 (RAJ)

Shanker Lal S/o Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2025-08-01

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SUNIL BENIWAL

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. Assailed herein is the judgment and order dated 15.10.1993, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.54/92 (61/92) whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Shanker Lal Mahendra U/s. 302 IPC: Sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and in default whereof to undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 324 IPC: Sentenced for one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and in default whereof to further undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 302/34 IPC: Sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and in default whereof to undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 324 IPC: Sentenced for one year’s rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- and in default whereof to further undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case originated from an FIR lodged on 14.06.1992 at Police Station Kotwali, Sriganganagar, based on a statement by Amar Singh (now deceased) wherein he alleged that he used to sell fruits near the Government Girls College and, on the day of the incident, accused-appellant No.1, Shanker, placed his fruit-cart while obstructing in Amar Singh’s cart. In response, Amar Singh's son, Rakesh, moved Shanker's cart. Later at around 9.00 p.m., enraged, Shanker, along with accused-appellant No.2 Mahendra, and his father-in-law and brothers-in-law, all armed with knives, surrounded Amar Singh and began attacking him. Shanker allegedly stabbed him in the stomach, while Mahendra stabbed him in the back. On hearing his cries, Rakesh and others rushed to the scene, prompting the attackers to flee. 2.1 An FIR was registered for offences under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 307, and 325 of the IPC. After Amar Singh later succumbed to his injuries, therefore, Section 302 IPC was added. 2.2 Upon completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 324 IPC against the appellants and three others, namely, Om Prakash, Umrao, and Mahendrapal. Thereafter, charges were framed under Sections 302/149, 324, and 148 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and sought trial. 2.3 During the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 38 documents. Accused Shanker Lal in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that the deceased Amar Singh attacked on him and in defence, deceased Amar Singh sustained injuries but he never intended to kill him. 2.3 During the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 38 documents. Accused Shanker Lal in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that the deceased Amar Singh attacked on him and in defence, deceased Amar Singh sustained injuries but he never intended to kill him. He also stated that he did not purposely caused any injury to the deceased Amar Singh. 2.4 After appreciating the evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants, while acquitting the remaining co- accused through the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appellants have preferred against their conviction for the aforesaid offences. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants, while challenging the impugned judgment has made the following submissions:- (i) The trial court failed to consider that the allegations against all five accused were general and non-specific. No distinct role was attributed to the present appellants in the assault on Amar Singh. Therefore, the benefit of doubt extended to the other co-accused should have also been given to the appellants. (ii) The court erred in accepting the prosecution version and in treating PW-4 Rakesh Kumar and PW-8 Satpal as credible eyewitnesses. The testimony of PW-4 Rakesh is particularly questionable. It is implausible that Rakesh, despite allegedly being present during the violent attack on his father, sustained no injuries and had no bloodstains on his clothes whereas it was deposed by him that after the assault he took his father (deceased Amar Singh) to the hospital in the fruit-cart. This raises serious doubt about his presence at the scene and rather suggests that he was introduced later by the prosecution to strengthen their case. (iii) According to PW-1 Dr. Rajeev Kaushik and PW-2 Dr. K.N. Markandey, the cause of death was a ruptured spleen. However, both doctors acknowledged that a person can survive even after spleen’s removal, indicating uncertainty regarding the exact cause of death. Therefore, there was insufficient medical evidence to conclusively establish that Amar Singh died as a result of injury No.10 or the injuries allegedly inflicted by the appellants. (iv) If PW-4 Rakesh and PW-8 Satpal had indeed witnessed the incident and had taken Amar Singh to the hospital on a fruit cart, as stated, it is highly unlikely that neither of them would have any bloodstains on their clothes. Their clean appearance contradicts the narrative and undermines their credibility. Beyond these two, no independent eyewitness supported the prosecution version. Their clean appearance contradicts the narrative and undermines their credibility. Beyond these two, no independent eyewitness supported the prosecution version. (v) Both PW-4 Rakesh and PW-8 Satpal are interested witnesses with personal stakes in the case, and their testimony alone cannot form the sole basis for convicting the appellants without corroboration. (vi) Kishorilal, as claimed by the prosecution to have arrived immediately after the assault, was not examined as a witness. In the absence of his testimony and any additional supporting evidence, the trial court should have extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants, as was done in the case of the acquitted co-accused. (vii) In view of statement given by accused-appellant No1. Shankerlal, it was a sudden fight and the accused-appellant No.1 Shankerlal so also deceased Amar Singh sustained knife injuries. He had no motive to kill nor was there any plan or preparation of murder. The weapon used is knife and the same is commonly kept by every seller in the fruit-cart. He further stated that he never intended to kill Amar Singh. The injuries received by him as well as Amar Singh were while he was defending himself. 3.1 In conclusion, counsel argued that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction recorded by the trial court is unsustainable and ought to be set aside, and the appellants should be acquitted of all charges. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the trial court had thoroughly considered the entire evidence on record and rightly convicted the present appellants. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to claim parity with the co-accused who were acquitted, as the allegations against them were omnibus in nature, whereas the involvement of the appellants was clearly established. In addition to above, learned counsel appearing for State has made the following submissions:- (i) The incident took place on 14.06.1992 at approximately 9:00 p.m., and Amar Singh (the deceased) was promptly taken to the hospital, at around 9:20 p.m. According to PW-10 Bhanwar Singh, the Investigating Officer, Statement of Amar Singh (deceased) was recorded at about 9:45 p.m., and the FIR was subsequently registered around 10:00 p.m. This clear timeline demonstrates that there was no delay in providing medical assistance, recording the statement of the victim, or registering the FIR. As such, it cannot be said that there was any undue delay or manipulation in the sequence of events, and the prosecution version of the incident remains credible and unshaken. (ii) The presence of PW-4 Rakesh Kumar and PW-8 Satpal at the time of incident cannot be doubted as the deceased Amar Singh was picked up from the place of incident and he was brought to the hospital on the fruit-cart by the said witness. The presence of PW-4 Rakesh Kumar is shown not only in the statement of deceased Amar Singh but also in the first information report and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve his presence. As far as PW-8 Satpal is concerned, although his name does not appear in the statement of Amar Singh or in the FIR, the fact that he sustained injuries while intervening during the altercation clearly proves his presence at the scene of occurrence. His injuries substantiate his role as an eyewitness to the incident. (iii) The medical evidence further supports the prosecution case. Both PW-1 and PW-2 (the doctors) confirmed that Amar Singh sustained 14 injuries, most of which were incised wounds caused by a sharp-edged weapon, except for injuries No. 8 and 9. The knife used in the attack was recovered from the appellants, linking them directly to the assault. Notably, PW-2 Dr. K.N. Markandey, who conducted the post-mortem, opined that injury No. 10 alone was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He opined that, esjh jk; esa vej flag dh e~R;q 'kkWd ,.M gejht ls tks Liyhu ¼rhyh½ ij pksV yxus ls gqbZ Fkh tks pksV u-a10 ls lacaf/kr Fkh ftlls vfeusVe ckgj vk x;s FksA^^ This clear medical opinion leaves no doubt that the cause of death was directly related to the injuries inflicted, particularly injury No.10. (iv) The appellants cannot equate their role with that of the acquitted co-accused. PW-8 Satpal, an injured eyewitness, explicitly stated that accused Shankerlal stabbed Amar Singh in the stomach, while appellant No. 2 Mahendra stabbed him in the back. Additionally, in his dying declaration, Amar Singh clearly named both Shankerlal and Mahendra, the accused-appellants, as the assailants. This direct attribution of acts to the appellants distinguishes their role and disqualifies any claim for parity with the others who were acquitted. Additionally, in his dying declaration, Amar Singh clearly named both Shankerlal and Mahendra, the accused-appellants, as the assailants. This direct attribution of acts to the appellants distinguishes their role and disqualifies any claim for parity with the others who were acquitted. (v) Although accused Shankerlal and the deceased Amar Singh were real brothers, the record shows that there were prior criminal cases between them. On the day of the incident, a dispute arose over the placement of fruit carts, which escalated into the fatal attack. This immediate provocation establish a clear motive for the crime, refuting any argument that there was no reason for the appellants to commit the murder. 4.1 In conclusion, learned counsel for the State argued that the appellants attacked on Amar Singh, inflicting as many as 14 injuries. The nature and extent of these injuries clearly indicate a deliberate intent to kill. Therefore, the trial court rightly convicted the appellants for the offences charged against them. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. Upon examination of the case record, it is evident that the prosecution case primarily rests on the testimonies of PW-4 Rakesh Kumar and PW-8 Satpal. Accordingly, it is essential to first assess the evidence presented by these two witnesses. 6.1 PW-4 Rakesh Kumar deposed that he was present at the scene when the incident occurred. Earlier, on the same day, a dispute had arisen when he and Satpal removed the fruit-cart belonging to Shankerlal. He further stated that Shankerlal, armed with a knife, attacked the deceased Amar Singh by stabbing him in the stomach, while Mahendra stabbed him in the back. He also deposed that Satpal attempted to snatch the knife from Shankerlal and, in doing so, sustained injuries to his fingers. During cross-examination, PW-4 disclosed that there had been a previous altercation between the accused-appellant No.1 Shankerlal and the deceased Amar Singh, just two to three days before the incident, concerning the placement of their fruit-carts. This prior conflict serves to establish that their relationship was not cordial. 6.2 PW-8 Satpal corroborated the statement of PW-4 Rakesh Kumar, stating that he intervened during the assault on Amar Singh and tried to take the knife from Shankerlal, which resulted in injuries to his fingers. He clearly stated that both accused inflicted the injuries on Amar Singh. This prior conflict serves to establish that their relationship was not cordial. 6.2 PW-8 Satpal corroborated the statement of PW-4 Rakesh Kumar, stating that he intervened during the assault on Amar Singh and tried to take the knife from Shankerlal, which resulted in injuries to his fingers. He clearly stated that both accused inflicted the injuries on Amar Singh. However, in cross- examination, he admitted that while he saw the two accused attacking Amar Singh, he could not specify the exact body parts on which the injuries were inflicted. 6.3 On a close analysis of both testimonies, the Court finds that although there are minor inconsistencies, they are not significant enough to undermine the credibility of the witnesses. The presence of PW-4 and PW-8 at the scene of the incident is not in doubt due to these minor contradictions. 7. Regarding the motive, both PW-4 Rakesh Kumar and PW-8 Satpal consistently deposed that there was an ongoing dispute between Shankerlal and the deceased Amar Singh over the placement of their respective fruit-carts. On the day of the incident, Shankerlal placed his cart at the spot usually occupied by Amar Singh, which led to the altercation. Being annoyed, Shankerlal, along with Mahendra, attacked Amar Singh with a knife. Thus, the motive behind the occurrence is clear. The fact of there being a motive further fortifies with the prior animocity between the deceased and the accused-appellant Shankerlal (brother of deceased), due to criminal cases. 7.1 Furthermore, the number of stabbed injuries, which are 12 in number, clearly indicate that they were not due to mere sudden altercation between the appellants and the deceased Amar Singh but they stabbed multiple times with knife and brutally murdered the deceased Amar Singh. 8. Coming on to the cause of death of deceased, examination of testimonies of PW-1 Dr. Rajeev Kaushik, PW-2 Dr. K.N. Markande and PW-10 Bhanwar Singh is relevant. 8.1. PW-1 Dr. Rajeev Kaushik attended the deceased in the hospital when he was brought in after the incident. He deposed that PW-10 Bhanwar Singh recorded the statement of the deceased (Ex. P/1) in his presence and he had endorsed as well as signed the statement. With regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased, he deposed that there were multiple injuries alongwith stab wound on the stomach. He deposed that PW-10 Bhanwar Singh recorded the statement of the deceased (Ex. P/1) in his presence and he had endorsed as well as signed the statement. With regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased, he deposed that there were multiple injuries alongwith stab wound on the stomach. 8.2 PW-10 Bhanwar Singh, the Investigation Officer, deposed that he had recorded the statement of deceased and lodged the FIR in light of the same. His testimony corroborates the version of PW-1 as to recording the statement of the deceased after the incident. Both the witnesses have deposed that the statement was not taken in question-answer format rather were narrated by the deceased. PW-10 further deposed that deceased had suffered multiple injuries hence, he recorded the statement immediately instead of approaching the Magistrate. 8.3 PW-2 Dr. K.N. Markande conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and has deposed that the deceased had suffered as many as 14 injuries and 12 of them could have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon. Furthermore, injury no.10 has been stated as fatal to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In the postmortem report (Ex. P/3), the cause of death is mentioned as shock, hemorrhage and injury in spleen. 8.4 Upon a conjoint consideration of the testimonies of aforementioned witnesses and medical evidence, this Court is of the opinion that it was indeed the injuries caused in the incident which was witnessed by PW-4 Rakesh Kumar and PW-8 Satpal which led to death of deceased Amar Singh. 8.5 Furthermore, the accused-appellant, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has admitted the fact that he caused injuries by knife. Though he stated that the deceased Amar Singh attacked on him by knife and in self-defense, he also attacked but looking to the injuries caused to the deceased Amar Singh, it is clear that the accused were aggressor party. Nevertheless, this admission clearly establishes his role in the incident along with the accused-appellant No.2 Mahendra. Both the accused-appellants attacked and the cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries, therefore, the learned trial Court was right in convicting the accused-appellants. 9. The veracity of statement of deceased has not been questioned therefore, the narration of incident as made by the deceased does not raise any doubt and is further corroborated by the testimonies of PW-4 Rakesh Kumar and PW-8 Satpal. 9. The veracity of statement of deceased has not been questioned therefore, the narration of incident as made by the deceased does not raise any doubt and is further corroborated by the testimonies of PW-4 Rakesh Kumar and PW-8 Satpal. It is clearly mentioned in the statement of deceased (Ex. P/1) as well as the testimonies of aforesaid witnesses that accused-Shankerlal stabbed the deceased Amar Singh in the stomach and accused-Mahendra stabbed him in the back. 9.1 Further, the incident took place at around 9.00 P.M.; the deceased Amar Singh was taken to hospital at 9.20 P.M.; and his statement was recorded by PW-10 Bhanwar Singh (I.O.) in presence of PW-1 Dr. Rajeev Kaushik at about 09.45 P.M., therefore, there was no possibility to tutor or manipulate him so as to give statement against the accused-appellants. This also fortifies the fact that it was the accused-appellants who committed the offence. 9.2 In view of this, the learned trial Court was fully justified in convicting the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 302, 302/34 and 324 IPC. 10. In view of the discussion made above and considering the reasons and the findings given by the learned trial court, this Court finds no ground to reverse the conviction of the appellant- accused. Resultantly, the order passed by the learned trial court is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed 11. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. 12. This Court is thankful to Ms. Anjali Kaushik, who has rendered her assistance as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused-appellants, in the present adjudication.