Baij Nath alias Vainkat Puri vs State of Haryana

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

Appellant Baij Nath alias Vainkat Puri son of Brij Lal resident of Hansa Pur, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ under Section 302 I.P.C. and to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ under Section 302. I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months vide order dated 21.1.1989 of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

The prosecution case is that there exists a Shiv Mandir in village Shamgarh and 27 killas of land is attached to the said Mandir. Baba Bishan Nath Puri has been occupying the gaddi of that Mandir. Trivendi Puri (deceased) and Vainkat Puri appellant had also been residing with Baba Bishan Nath Puri in that Mandir since long. The annual income of the said Mandir is stated to be about Rs. 80,000/. A Committee is also formed to manage its affairs Jai Singh (PW 2) is one of the members of the said Committee. Triveni Puri and Vainkat Puri appellant used to quarrel over the question of gaddi and Jai Singh (PW 2) used to stop them fighting. Jai Singh (PW 2) had further reprimanded them that in case, the deceased and the appellant did not stop fighting over the matter of gaddi, he would throw them out.

The prosecution case further goes that on 30.10.1988 at about 2.00 P.M. Jai Singh (PW 2) was sleeping on a clothing in the verandah of the Mandir and deceased Baba Triveni Puri was lying in his room. Baba Vainkat Puri appellant was abusing the deceased while sitting outside. At that time Dalel Singh (PW1) and Arjun Singh (PW 3) were returning to their houses from the fields. In order to drink water, both of them went inside the Shiv Mandir. The appellant within their sight picked up an axe lying nearby saying that he would make the deceased Chela (disciple) right now, and rushed the room where Baba Trivani Puri was lying Dalel Singh and Arjun Singh PWs saw the appellant giving three axe blows from its blunt side to Baba Trivani Puri. Both these witnesses rushed towards the deceased in order to rescue him. The appellant left the deceased and went to the verandah where Jai Singh (PW) was lying. The appellant gave 3/4 axe blows to Jai Singh on his head and temple saying that the appellant would make him a confirmed member of the Committee of the Mandir. When Dalel Singh and Arjun Singh PWs reached near Jai Singh PW, Vainkat Puri appellant fled away from the spot taking the axe with him. Jai Singh PW was removed to Civil Hospital, Karnal on motorcycle. Dalel Singh PW then arranged for a tractortrolley from the village and took Triveni Puri deceased to Civil Hospital, Karnal. Dr. P.K. Bhatia (PW 8) Orthopedic Surgeon, Karnal, sent runs Exhibit PU to incharge Police Post. General Hospital Karnal regarding the admission of Jai Singh in the hospital. Separate ruka Exhibit PS was sent by the said Doctor regarding the admission of Triveni Puri deceased in the Hospital. On receipt of message regarding the admission of Jai Singh injured in the Hospital, ASI Siya Nand (PW 6) left Police Post at 3.45 P.M. and then reached Civil Hospital, Karnal. Near the gate of the Hospital, Dalel Singh (PW 1) met the said ASI and made the above statement regarding the incident. On the basis of the same, the present case was registered under section 307 I.P.C.

On the evening of 30.10.1988 Triveni Puri injured succumbed to the injuries. ASI Siya Nand prepared inquest report Exhibit PK and got the postmortem examination performed on the dead body. The case was converted from on under Section 307 to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code consequent upon the death of Trivani Puri injured. S.I. Nar Singh Dass (PW 9) took up the investigation of the case from ASI Siya Nand. He went to the place of occurrence and prepared rough plan Exhibit PX. He took into possession cot. bloostedstained strings of the cot as also blood stained earth. On 1.10.1988 accusedappellant was arrested. On 2.11.1988 the accusedappellant in pursuance of disclosure statement got recovered axe Exhibit P. 1 concealed in the Parali of one Som Nath. It was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exhibit PP/1. Rough sketch of the axe was also prepared.

Dr. P.K. Bhatia (PW8) medico legally examined Jai Singh (PW2) on 20.10.1988 at 2.50 P.M. and found the following injuries on his person :

Diffused swelling on the left side of the face for which x ray was advised.

Two abrasions of 1 cm each on the left side of face between angle of eye and pinny.

An abrasion of 1 cm on the left side of nose.

An irregular would 6 cms x 1/2 cm. It was bone deep. Fresh bleeding was present and it was on the left side of scalp and Teshaped. Xray of skull was advised and opinion of general surgeon was sought.

Injuries 1 and 4 were kept under xray observation while injuries 2 and 3 were declared simple in nature. These injuries were found to have been caused by an axe if used from blunt side. On 31.10.1988 at 11.30 A.M. Dr. R.S. Chaudhary conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Baba Trivani Puri and found the following :

Right eye blackened and swollen.

Fracture of nasal hone found.

Fracture of frontal temporal and parietal bone on right side found.

A big haematoma underneath fracture was found. The stomach contained semidigested food.

In the opinion of the Doctor, cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. The injuries were antmortem and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dalel Singh (PW1) and Arjan Singh (PW3) the eye witnesses of the incident, while Jail Singh (PW2) is the injured witness. Baba Bishan Nath Puri as PW4, Monhar Lal, draftsman, as PW5, Siva Nand ASI, as PW6, Om Parkash as PW7 Dr. P.K. Bhataia, PW8 and SI Nar Singh PW9.

The accused when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution allegations against him and pleaded false implication.

The learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the conviction and sentence of the accused on the plea that it was a blind murder and nobody had seen the occurrence, whereas, the State Counsel has defended the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused.

We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant at length and have gone through the entire evidence on record.

Dalel Singh (PW1) at the time of trial had stated that on the day of occurrence he alongwith Arjan Singh (PW3) had gone to the temple to drink water at about 2. P.M. On reaching the temple, he found his brother Jai Singh, sleeping in the verandah of the temple and deceased Triveni Puri present in a room. The accusedappellant Vainkat Puri was hurling abuses to Triveni Puri and was saying that he would teach him a lesson for becoming a Chela of Gaddi. This PW had further stated that the accused then lifted the axe lying near the kitchen and gave 3/4 blows on the chest of Baba Triveni Puri. It has also come in his testimony that he alongwith Arjan Singh went inside the room to save Baba Triveni Puri. On seeing them, accused left the room and while going he gave axe blows on the person of Jai Singh, who was sleeping in the verandah. This witness had also stated that on seeing them the accused fled away with the axe. Arjan Singh, while appearing as PW1 had stated before the trial Court that the accusedappellant had already inflicted axe blow on the body of the deceased before they could enter the room.

Keeping in view all this, the presence of Dalel Singh (PW1) and Arjan Singh (PW3) is not free from doubt. Had they been present at the time of occurrence, the accused appellant would not have given injuries to Jai Singh (PW2) in their presence. Moreso, in that situation, the normal conduct of the accusedappellant would have been to run away from the place of occurrence on seeing them. The statements of these alleged eyewitnesses are also discrepant on the material point i.e. with regard to infliction of injuries on the person of the debased. According to Dalel Singh, the accused had lifted the axe which was lying near the kitchen and gave blows afterward on the chest of Triveni Puri. As per testimony of Arjan Singh (PW3) the accused had already given 2/3 blows on the person of the deceased before they entered the room. As such, it cannot be believed that Dalel Singh (PW1) had actually seen the accused lifting the axe and giving injuries to the deceased. In the light of their contradictory statements, a conclusion can be arrived that Dale Singh and Arjan Singh PWs did not see the accuseappellant giving injuries on the person of the deceased as per their venison in the cross examination. Thus, their version in examination in chief that they saw the accused inflicting injuries on the person of Baba Triveni Puri stands falsified. The fact that Jai Singh injured happens to be the brother of Dalel Singh (P1) cannot be lost sight of. Had Dalel Singh been present at the time of occurrence his natural conduct would have been to raise alarm to save his brother Jai Singh. However, both the witnesses remained silent spectators and did not bother to chase or catch hold of the accused. All this goes to show that they were not present at the time of alleged occurrence. They were cited by the prosecution as witnesses smply because of the fact that Dalel Singh is the brother of Jai Singh, injured, whereas Arjan Singh is the friend of Dalel Singh and their fields are adjacent to each other. Thus, their presence at the spot appears to be highly doubtful. As such their testimony is not worthy of credence.

Arjan Singh (PW3) had also stated that ASI had recorded his statement in the hospital where as ASI Siya Nand, P.S. Indri while appearing as PW6 had categorically stated that he did not record the statement of Arjan Singh (PW4) on the day of occurrence. Thus, it clearly goes to show that Arjan Singh was introduced at a later stage though he was not present at the time of alleged occurrence.

As regards the testimony of Jal Singh injured (PW2), he has stated that he was sleeping on a cot in the verandah of the temple when all of a sudden the accusedappellant inflicted axe blow on his head followed by another blow as a result of which he fell unconscious. The witnesses are also discrepant as to whether Jai Singh PW was asleep or awake when the accusedappellant inflicted injuries on his person whereas according to Dalel Singh (PW1) and Arjan Singh (PW3), Jal Singh was asleep when the accused inflicted injuries. They are of the view that since Jai Singh was asleep at the time of infliction of injuries he could not see as to who his assailant was. Furthermore, Jai Singh PW did not state anywhere that he saw the accused giving injuries to Triveni Puri deceased who was inside the other room. The testimony of Jai Singh PW therefore does not advance the case of the prosecution in any manner.

The other important aspect of the matter is that Baba Bishan Nath Puri (PW4) who is controlling the gaddi of the Mandir, has not supported the prosecution version. He was declared hostile but despite that the prosecution could not extract anything from him which could improve the prosecution case. According to Baba Bishan Nath Puri (PW4) on the day of occurrence he had seen Jai Singh in an injured condition. He had informed some persons and several people including Dalel Singh and Arjun Singh PWs had come to the place of occurrence. Nobody had given the name of the assailant at the spot.

In his crossexamination he stated that the accused was arrested from the Mandir itself at about 3/4 P.M. At that time the accused had bolted the gate of the room of the Mandir from inside. Baba Bishan Nath Puri is an independent witness. His testimony cannot easily be brushed aside. He has given the correct venison of the incident. Had Dalel Singh and Arjan Singh PWs been present at the time of occurrence and had seen the accused inflicting injuries on the persons of Triveni Puri deceased and Jai Singh PW, they would have definitely given the name of the real assailant to Baba Bishan Nath Puri (PW4). Under the circumstances, it appears to be a case of blind murder and nobody had seen and knew as to who the assailant was.

The motive attributed to the accusedappellant for the murder and infliction of injuries on the person of Jai Singh PW is that the accused wanted to inherit gaddi. The question of inheritance of gaddi would not arise during the lifetime of Baba Bishon Nath Puri PW. It could have arisen only after his death. Thus, the prosecution has also not been able to prove the motive part of the story.

Taking an overall view of the matter, we are satisfied that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accusedappellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, we accept the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellant and acquit him of the charges. Fine, if paid, be refunded, to him. He be set at liberty if not required in any other case.