Anand Singh @ Ani vs State of Uttrakhand

B.C. Kandpal, J.—This Criminal Jail Appeal, u/s 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27-10-2005, passed by Sessions Judge Pithoragarh, in Sessions Trial No. 10/2005, State v. Anand Singh, convicting the accused appellant Anand Singh u/s 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months.

The prosecution case in brief is that Smt. Lila Devi residents of village Naini Patti Chaudmanya Tehsil Berinag District Pithoragarh lodged a written report at Patwari Circle Chaudmanya on 17-4-2004 at 7 A.M. with the allegation that at about 1 A.M. in the night of 16- 4-2004 and 17-4-2004, she along with her husband Faqir Singh was sleeping at her village house, Anand Singh @ Ani came at her house premises and challenged them to come out as he had come there to thrash their wheat. (In this hilly region the sense of thrashing the wheat is to challenge any one to beat him). At this the complainant asked him to go as they had no wheat for thrashing. The husband of the complainant Faqir Singh came in the house premises after opening the door and asked the accused Anand Singh not to disturb them and go away. The complainant Smt. Lila Devi also reached in the courtyard and told her husband not to scuffle with the accused and asked her husband to go inside the house. At this Anand Singh gave a blow on the head of Faqir Singh by the Danda which hewas having with him. Receiving Danda blow Faqir Singh fell down on the ground. The Danda broke down. Suddenly the accused picked up another Danda from the house premises and gave another blow at the head of Faqir Singh due to which he died at the spot. On the cries of the complainant neighbours also arrived at the spot till then the accused had gone away from there and he could not be caught red handedly by the persons collected there.

On the basis of written report, Ext. Ka.2, the Patwari of the Circle prepared chick F.I.R. Ext. Ka.4 on the same day and registered a case against the accused u/s 302 I.P.C. as case crime No. 1/2004 and started the investigation in the case. He visited the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report Ext. Ka.5. He inspected the place of occurrence and took into possession the blood- stained and simple earth vide memo Ext. Ka.6. Thereafter the Investigating Officer in presence of witnesses took into possession the Lathi/Dandas which were used by the accused in committing the murder of Faqir Singh and prepared memo Ext.Ka.3. He also prepared site-plan of the place of occurrence Ext. Ka.9. The I.O. got arrested the accused in the evening on of the day of occurrence itself and prepared arrest memo Ext. Ka.7. He also seized the wearing clothes of the accused vide memo Ext.Ka.8. The Patwari prepared letter to C.M.O. Ext.Ka.11, police Form No. 13, Ext. Ka.12, sketch Laas Ext. Ka.13, sealed the dead body and prepared sample seal Ext. Ka.14 and sent the dead body for post mortem. Thereafter the Patwari also wrote letter Ext. Ka.10 to C.M.O. for sending the cloths of deceased, cloths of accused and the earth seized by him for chemical examination. The above articles were sent to chemical Examiner Agra by Judicial Magistrate Didihat vide letter Ext. Ka.15. The Chemical Examiner has sent his report Ext. Ka.16.

The autopsy on the dead body of Faqir Singh was conducted by Dr. H.S. Kharyat, Ortho Surgeon, District Hospital Pithoragarh on 18-4- 2004 at 11 A.M. The doctor has found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased-

Incised wound on back of skull( scalp) midline to right side 4.6 cm x 2cm bone deep blood clots found.

Lacerated wound right ear (split) 2.5 cm 0.5 cm blood clots with contusion over right temporal/ear area 10cm x 6cm.

Abrased contusion over fore arm to wrist left ( parallel side), 6cm x 4cm with two parallel line distance 3 cm.

Contusion over dorsum of right hand to wrist, 6cm x4cm.

Abrasion medial side of left knee 3cm x 2.5cm.

According to the doctor the cause of death was due to ante-mortem head injury leading to coma. The Medical Officer prepared the autopsy report Ext. Ka.1.

The investigating officer after completion of the investigation submitted charge sheet Ext. Ka.17 against the accused.

The Judicial Magistrate, Didihat vide his order dated 7-04-2005 committed the case to the court of Sessions. Thereafter the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh framed charge u/s 302 I.P.C. against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed his trial.

The prosecution in order to support its case has examined P.W.1, Dr. H.S. Kharyat, who conducted the post mortem on the dead body, P.W.2 Smt. Lila Devi, who is the complainant as well as the eye witness of the occurrence, P.W.3, Km. Radha, another eye witness and P.W.4, Rajendra Singh, investigating officer of the case.

The accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has denied the prosecution case. He has stated that he has no concern with the occurrence and he has been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity by the village people.

The learned Sessions Judge after hearing learned Counsel for the parties and considering the entire material available on record, found the accused guilty of the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months S.I.

Feeling aggrieved, the accused Anand Singh has preferred this jail appeal.

We have heard Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The first contention of learned Amicus Curiae is that the prosecution has not been able to establish the motive for committing the crime by the convict appellant and a false case has been concocted against him and the genesis of the prosecution case is highly doubtful.

It is true that no motive has been assigned to the accused/appellant for commission of this crime, but motive does not play important role where there is eye witness account. In this case the prosecution has examined P.W.1, Smt. Lila Devi who is the eye witness of the occurrence. She has lodged the report at the police station and in the first information report she has specifically named the accused as the assailant. The F.I.R. has been lodged without any delay with the Revenue Police and there was no occasion for false implication of the accused in the crime. P.W.3, Km. Radha has also seen the incident. She has reached the place of occurrence on the cries raised by Smt. Lila Devi and saw that the accused was beating Faqir Singh with Dandas and when she asked the accused what he was doing, the accused fled away after throwing the Danda at the spot. Therefore in view of the eyewitness account the motive or intention to commit the murder has got no relevancy in this case and the submission of learned Amicus Curiae is not accepted.

The another contention of learned Amicus Curiae is that the complainant and the deceased used to live at Noida and they occasionally visited their native village, the accused is residents of adjoining village, hence it was not possible for the complainant to recognize the accused in the dark hours of night.

Again the submission of learned Amicus Curiae has no substance. The accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has narrated that he used to do labour work in village Naini (village of complainant) therefore the complainant had occasion to recognize the accused very well. Again in the deposition of this witness it has come that at the time of incident she had torch light and in the torch light she saw the accused. Km. Radha P.W.2, also stated in her examination-in-chief that she had reached at the place of incident with a torch and she saw the accused beating Faqir Singh in the torch light. In the above circumstances there remains no doubt about the light as well as acquaintance of the complainant and the another eyewitness P.W.2, Km. Radha with the accused prior to the incident. Further, on the basis of evidence it is clear that accused after reaching at the house of complainant, started shouting asking the deceased to come out and the deceased as well as complainant replied him to go back. So under these circumstances there remains no doubt about the identity of the accused.

Learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that actually the deceased himself fell on the stairs and the accused has been falsely implicated in the case.

Again the submission of learned Amicus Curiae is not acceptable. P.W.1, Smt. Lila Devi and P.W.2, Km. Radha seem to be natural witnesses and no reason has been assigned from the defence side that as to why the complainant would spare the real culprit and would falsely implicate the accused appellant. The statement of P.W.1 Smt. Lila Devi is trustworthy and reliable. She seems to be a natural witness. This witness in her cross examination has categorically stated that Anand Singh had no enmity with them. He belongs to another village and he used to come to her village to do labour work. She has denied this suggestion that her husband fell down on the stairs while he was coming out to urinate. P.W.1, Smt. Lila Devi in her examination in chief has deposed that in the midnight of 16/17 April 2004 at about 1 A.M. accused came to her house and challenged them to come out as he has come there to thrash their wheat. She further deposed that on the asking of accused they remained quiet but when the accused again asked them to come out then they came out of their house premises after opening the doors and asked the accused not to disturb them and go away. At this the accused gave Danda blow at the head of her husband Faqir Singh. He also picked up another Danda from the courtyard and again gave blow at the head of her husband due to which her husband fell down unconscious. On her raising alarm Radha Devi came there and other people also came there and the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. She also deposed when she and her husband had come out of the house they had torch light. She further alleged that she has got scribed the report from one Vikram Singh and sent it to Patwari Circle Chadmanya. This witness has been cross examined by the defence but nothing material came out in her cross examination which may render her deposition unreliable and untrustworthy.

P.W.2, Km. Radha has fully supported the version of P.W.1, Smt. Lila Devi. The house of this witness is adjacent to the house of P.W.1, Smt. Lila Devi. The distance between two houses has been shown to be 50-60 meters. She has deposed that in the midnight of 16/17th April 2004, she was sleeping in her room. She heard the cries of Smt. Lila Devi from her house premises. She also reached at the place of occurrence and saw that accused was beating Faqir Singh with Danda. She asked the accused what he was doing at this he fled away from the spot throwing his Danda at the spot. No reason has been assigned to this witness also as to why she would narrate falsely against the accused. Therefore we are of the definite view that both the eyewitnesses are natural and trustworthy.

Learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that the scribe of the F.I.R. has not been examined before the trial court which is fatal to the prosecution case.

The above submission of learned Amicus Curiae is also without force. P.W.1, Smt. Lila Devi in her examination-in-chief has deposed that she has got scribed the written report from Vikram Singh and sent it to the Circle Patwari. The written report also bears the signature of Vikram Singh. P.W.1, Smt. Lila Devi has got proved the written report as Ext. Ka.2 and non-examination of Vikram Singh in the case do not make the F.I.R. unbelievable. The written report was handed over to Circle Patwari at 7 A.M. by Vikram Singh on 17.4.2004. Patwari of the Circle has also made an endorsement at the foot of the F.I.R. that he received the report at 7 A.M. on 17.4.2004 through Vikram Singh. Therefore there remains no doubt that the written report was not prepared and lodged in the manner as stated by P.W.1, Smt. Lila Devi. In our opinion prompt F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant and there was no occasion for false implication of the accused in the case.

The medical evidence also fully supports the prosecution version. P.W.1, Dr. H.S. Kharyat has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and found four injuries on his person. Injury No. 1 was incised wound on the back of skull measuring 4.6cm x 2cm x bone deep. In the opinion of the doctor injury No. 1 was serious and other injuries were simple in nature. The cause of death was due to ante mortem head injury. The doctor also opined that the injuries might have been caused in the night in between 16th and 17th April 2004 at about 1A.M.

It will not be out of place to mention here that the cloths of accused, deceased and the Dandas and earth was sent for chemical examination. The Chemical Examiner vide his report Ext. Ka.16 has found human blood on these articles and this report also strengthen the prosecution case.

In view of above discussion we are of definite view that the accused Anand Singh @ Ani has committed the murder of Faqir Singh by causing injury on his head by a Danda which in the ordinary course was sufficient to cause his death and the accused appellant is guilty of committing the murder of Faqir Singh and the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court requires no interference by this Court. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the convict appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. awarded by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby confirmed.

The convict appellant is already in jail. He shall be detained in jail to serve out the remaining sentence awarded by the trial court.