Deeplal vs State Of Rajasthan

The appellant stands convicted and sentenced as below vide the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2011 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.14/2010:-

Under Section 302 IPC

Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month S.I.

Being aggrieved of his convi ction and sentences, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C.

Brief facts are that one Shabbir Mohammad (PW.4) resident of Vasni Khurd made a call at Police Station Fatehnagar on 28.11.2009 at 4:30 pm informing that Wajeram Gurjar's daughter Chandibai had been murdered by her husband Deeplal. On receiving this telephone, Shri Tarachand Sharma (PW.17), the SHO PS Fatehnagar proceeded to the place of occurrence where Wajeram Gurjar (PW.3) submitted a written report to him alleging inter alia that his daughter's husband Deeplal had come to his house and was staying there for the last 7-8 days. His daughter Chandibai was at her matrimonial home for the last fifteen days. She came down to her house to meet him and other family members at about 10 O' clock in the morning. No sooner had she reached the informant's house and upon seeing her, the accused appellant Deeplal started quarrelling with Chandibai. The informant and his wife tried to counsel the spouses and thereafter, they went to the fields for work leaving both of them behind. The informant returned to his house at about 2 O' Clock in the afternoon and saw that the door appeared to be locked. He saw the accused appellant Deeplal running from behind the house having a Kunt in his hand. The informant called out and requested the accused appellant Deeplal to stop but he did not pay heed and ran away to the fields. The informant and his wife became apprehensive and went near the room on which they saw that key was hanging in the lock. They opened the door and saw Chandibai lying near the earthen pot. Lot of blood was coming out and on checking, they feared that she might have died. On noticing these circumstances, the informant's wife Babri (PW.2) raised a hue and cry on which his neighbour and daughter Ganeshi (PW.1) came down. Shabbir Mohammad also came to the spot and called the police. The informant alleged that the accused appellant Deeplal had killed Chandibai by blows of Kunt as he had been enraged by the fact that she (the deceased) had returned from her matrimonial home. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR No.163/2009 was registered at Police Station Fatehnagar for the offence under Section 302 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused appellant Deeplal for the offences under Sections 302 & 326 IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Mavli. The case was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur from where the same was transferred for trial to the court of ASJ (Fast Track No.1), Udaipur. The trial court framed charge against the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents in support of its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, the accused appellant denied the same but did not lead any evidence in defence.

After hearing the arguments advanced by prosecution as well as the defence and after appreciating the entire evidence available on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above, hence, this appeal.

Learned Counsel Shri Kalu Ram Bhati representing the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that the prosecution evidence is not convincing and of sterling worth. The first informant Wajeram (PW.3) did not actually see the incident happening. The evidence of Ganeshi (PW.1) & Smt. Babri (PW.2), daughter and wife respectively of the informant are also wavering and contradictory. He further urged that the statement of the so-called eyewitness Ganesh (PW.8) is also unworthy of credence because of his conduct in failing to make any attempt to save the deceased despite claiming that he saw the incident. He further submits that the recovery of the Kunt made at the instance of the accused appellant is also false and fabricated and that as the recovery was made from an open place accessible to all, it is inadmissible. On these grounds, he implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellant of the charges.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant. He urged that there was no enmity between the parties which could have motivated Wajeram to file a false report against the appellant. He contended that the accused appellant was, as a matter of fact, living at the house of the first informant for the last 7-8 days and was being provided treatment there. He became enraged on noticing the presence of his wife Chandibai and started fighting with her. The informant and his wife pacified the spouses and left for their farming jobs. However, the accused continued to fight with his wife. Repeated injuries were caused by the accused to the deceased by a Kunt on the vital parts of her body which proved fatal. He further submitted that the witness Ganesh (PW.8) categorically stated that he saw the appellant inflicting Kunt blows to the deceased and that his testimony is of sterling worth because no significant cross-examination was made from him on this aspect. His testimony, merely because, the witness did not intervene and did not try to save the deceased, the same cannot be a ground to doubt his testimony. He thus, implored the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned judgment.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

It is not in dispute that neither the first informant Wajeram (PW.3) nor the eyewitness Ganesh (PW.8) had any animosity against the appellant. It is an admitted case of the defence that the appellant was staying at the house of his father-in-law Wajeram from 7-8 days prior to the incident and was undertaking some treatment. Manifestly, the theory of animosity put forth by the deceased looses steam by this very admission. The accused appellant got annoyed and enraged on seeing his wife coming to her father's house because he apparently could not digest the fact that she had left the matrimonial home without his permission. He started quarreling with the deceased on this count. The parents i.e., Wajeram and Smt. Babri tried to appease the spouses and thereafter, went to work in the fields. What transpired behind them in the closed confines of the house could be either in the exclusive knowledge of the accused or of the deceased.

The eyewitness Ganesh is an immediate neighbour of the house of Wajeram. On hearing the noise of commotion, he went towards the house of Wajeram and saw the appellant standing there with a Kunt in his hand and Chandibai lying down on the floor with injuries on her neck and on her mouth. The appellant threatened the witness on which he became scared and went away. The witnesses Ganeshi (PW.1), Babri (PW.2) & Wajeram (PW.3) categorically stated that when they returned to their home from the fields, they saw the appellant running away from the backside with a Kunt in his hand. No significant cross-examination was conducted from these witnesses regarding this aspect of their testimony. As per the statement of medical jurist Dr. Narendra Bhati (PW.18), he noticed five injuries on the person of the deceased, three of which, were located respectively on her head, face and neck and fourth was on her hand. The cause of death was opined to be the injury on the neck which resulted into cutting of the neck muscles leading to excessive bleeding. Of-course, the doctor stated in his cross-examination that the injuries could not have been caused by sharp-edged weapon but we feel that the said opinion appears to be sheerly accountable to lack of experience because it is categorically mentioned in the description of the injury Nos.2, 3 & 4 made in the PMR (Ex.P/19) that the muscles underlying the injuries were cut. Manifestly, a cut wound with clear margins can only be caused by sharp-edged weapon. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the wounds noticed on the body of deceased were caused by a sharp-edged weapon like a Kunt and the same proved instantaneously fatal. The accused appellant was arrested on 28.11.2009 and in furtherance of the information provided by him to the Investigating Officer Shri

Tarachand Sharma (PW.17), he got a Kunt recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P/9. The Kunt, the clothes of the deceased and of the accused as well as the blood stained soil picked up from the spot were forwarded to FSL for chemical and serological examination and a report (Ex.P/25) was received from there indicating the presence of 'B' group blood on the clothes worn by the accused, deceased and the Kunt.

Manifestly, on appreciating the evidence pertaining to the procedure of recoveries as deposed by the prosecution witnesses including the IO Tarachand Sharma, we do not find any significant shortcoming therein so as to doubt the same.

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused appellant by leading clinching and convincing evidence which is acceptable on all counts. In our view, the trial court appreciated the evidence available on record in an absolutely just and apropos manner while reaching to the finding of guilt of the accused appellant. The impugned judgment dated 22.12.2011 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.14/2010 ex facie does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity whatsoever warranting interference therein. Hence, we find no merit in the instant appeal which is hereby rejected.