Jasaram vs State Of Rajasthan

The present appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant Jasaram against the judgment dated 16/12/2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali in Sessions Case No.27/2011, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo one year's simple imprisonment.

Brief facts in the present case are that a complaint was filed by Jeeva Ram (PW.3) before the Station House Officer, Police Station Bali (Ex.P.6) stating therein that on 29/05/2011 at around 9:30 p.m., his wife Chauthi (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was sitting in the house in front of the gate opening on the road. Jasa Ram who was their neighbour rushed from his house with Kunt in his hand and inflicted a blow on the head of his wife Chauthi. His wife became unconscious. Jasa Ram after assaulting his wife ran away from the spot. Bhikha Ram and Hansaram who were standing in front of their house saw this incident and took his wife Chauthi to the hospital. On reaching the hospital, he was informed about the entire incident.

On the aforesaid complaint, a formal FIR No.100/2011 was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC at the Police Station Bali, District Pali. During the course of investigation, the injured Chauthi died while undergoing treatment and, therefore, police added Section 302 IPC in the matter.

After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C to the accused appellant who denied the charge and sought trial.

During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and 28 documents were exhibited.

The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case in connection with the old rivalry. There were two groups in their village and because the witnesses were of the opposite group, therefore, he was falsely implicated in the present case.

Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statement of witnesses, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 16/12/2015. Hence this appeal.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that there exist material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses examined before the trial Court. He further submits that as per the statement of PW.18 Dr. M.P. Joshi, if proper treatment by the experts was extended to the deceased then it would have been possible to save the life of the injured Chauthi. He, therefore, submits that Chauthi succumbed to the injuries sustained by her due to lack of proper medical care and attention.

Learned counsel took us through the testimony of PW.6 Bhikharam and PW.17 Hansaram and stated that there were material contradiction in the testimony of these witnesses and they could not be said to be eye witnesses of the incident in this case. They were planted by the prosecution as eye-witnesses and their testimonies were required to be discarded.

Learned counsel further submits that the assault was not premeditated as there was no motive to inflict fatal injuries to Chauthi and the appellant lost his control due to mental imbalance as he was not in a sound mental state and, therefore, in a sudden fit of rage he inflicted a single injury to Chauthi which ultimately proved fatal. Therefore, case of the appellant, in these circumstances, is liable to be converted from one under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC.

He further submits that the entire family will suffer and face starvation if the appellant, who has already undergone the sentence of more than seven years, is not treated with leniency on the aspect of sentence. He, therefore, prays that sympathetic view should be taken in the present case as the family comprising his wife and children will suffer a lot.

Learned counsel on the strength of these arguments submits that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that present appellant was guilty of the offence alleged in the present case and therefore, the learned trial court committed grave factual and legal error while convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the alleged offence as above vide Judgment dated 16/12/2015, which deserves to be set aside in appeal and the accused-appellant may be acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

Per contra, learned public prosecutor submits that the prosecution has proved the allegations levelled against the present appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. He further submits that the testimony of PW.6 Bhikha Ram and PW.17 Hansa Ram being the eye witnesses of the incident is reliable and worth credence establishing involvement of the present appellant who inflicted fatal injury on the head of Chauthi with a sharp edged weapon i.e. Kunt resulting into her death. Their statements are fully corroborated from the medical evidence in the shape of the statement of PW.18 Dr. M.P. Joshi, postmortem report (Ex.P.26) wherein the cause of death was mentioned as head injury, and the FSL Report wherein the bloodstains found on the weapon of offence i.e. Kunt matching the bloodstains present on the clothes of the deceased Chauthi completing the chain of circumstances in such a fashion which only pointed out that it was none other than the appellant who committed the offence alleged in the present case. He, therefore, prays that learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence on record and appreciating the facts in the present case rightly convicted the appellant vide judgment dated 16/12/2015 and therefore, the same does not warrant any interference in appeal.

We have considered the submissions made at bar and have closely scrutinized the entire material available on record.

PW.17 Hansaram stated that the house of PW.6 Bhika Ram was located opposite to the house of Jeeva Ram and deceased Chauthi. While Smt. Chauthi, wife of Jeeva Ram, was sitting outside her house, accused appellant Jasaram came there on a cycle and inflicted a Kunt blow on the head of Smt. Chauthi and escaped from the spot on his cycle towards the Rabadiyo Ka Bas. Chauthi became unconscious and fell flat on the ground because of the injury inflicted to her. She was taken to Bali Hospital in the vehicle of Ramesh. A financial dispute was going on between Jasaram and Mohanlal son of Jeeva Ram which was portrayed as motive for committing the crime. From Bali Hospital, Chauthi was referred to Jodhpur, where during the treatment, she passed away. He and Bhikha Ram saw the present appellant inflicting injury on the head of Chauthi. Nothing significant was elicited in the cross-examination of this witness so as to doubt credibility or veracity of the deposition made by him in the examination-in-chief.

PW.6 Bhikha Ram who was living next door to the house of deceased stated almost on the same lines as stated by PW.17 Hansa Ram.

PW.3 Jeeva Ram who was husband of the deceased Chauthi stated that accused appellant assaulted his wife Chauthi by a sharp edged weapon i.e. Kunt on her head while she was sitting near the gate of their house. Immediately after getting the information, he went to the hospital where Bhikha Ram narrated the entire incident to him. Bhikha Ram and Hansa Ram witnessed the assault being made by the accused upon Smt. Chauthi.

P.W. 16 - Kamal Kishore, S.I. Police Station Bali was the Investigation Officer, who conducted the investigation of the matter and stated that he prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of the witnesses, effected the recovery & collected the samples.

PW.18 Dr. M.P. Joshi who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and described the dimension and the place of injury suffered by the deceased. He further stated that cause of death was head injury suffered by Smt. Chauthi.

Postmortem Report is Ex.P.26 wherein the cause of death of the deceased was shown as head injury. Ex.P.27 is the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the accused followed by recovery of weapon of offence i.e. Kunt, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P.7. FSL Report is Ex.P.28 wherein blood group "O" was found on the weapon of offence i.e. Kunt which was matching with the blood group of the deceased as found on her bloodstained clothes sent for examination.

PW.6 Bhikharam and PW.17 Hansaram categorically narrated the entire sequence of events stating that the appellant inflicted fatal blow on the head of the deceased Chauthi and escaped from the scene of occurrence. Both the witnesses i.e. PW.6 Bhikharam and PW.17 Hansaram reside in the same neighbourhood where the deceased was staying. Their presence at the time of incident is quite natural as they were the inhabitants of the area and were talking to each other in front of the house of the deceased. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the testimony of PW.6 Bhikharam and PW.17 Hansaram, who are independent witnesses, more particularly when there is no enmity between them and the accused. Nothing has come on record which shows that their deposition against the appellant was for ulterior motive or out of some enmity. In the wake of their clinching evidence corroborated from the medical evidence i.e. statement of PW.18 Dr. M.P. Joshi describing the exact dimension of the injury sustained on the head of the deceased and the postmortem report (Ex.P.26) showing the cause of death to be head injury, the testimony of the eye witnesses PW.6 Bhikharam and PW.17 Hansaram gets fortified.

We further note that the bloodstains found on the weapon of offence i.e. Kunt and the clothes of the deceased are same as per the FSL Report Ex.P.28 which completes the chain of circumstances showing that it was none other than the appellant who was involved in the commission of the offence alleged in the present case.

We are least persuaded by the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that there was no motive or no premeditation and it is a case of single injury which is required to be sympathetically considered by converting the conviction of the appellant from one under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC for the simple reason that the weapon of offence being a sharp edged Kunt, a blow with such a force has been inflicted on the vital part i.e. head of the deceased which clearly shows the intention of the appellant to cause death of the victim and, therefore, in our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, more particularly the testimony of PW.6 Bhikha Ram and PW.17 Hansaram, the charge cannot be turned down from the offence under Section 302 IPC to 304 Part I IPC. Merely because the family of the accused will suffer cannot be a ground to extend any sympathy as the deceased also has a family who lost their loved one by the cruel calculated act of the accused.

We further note that nothing has come on record which shows that there was any altercation or provocation so grave and sudden which prompted the appellant to inflict fatal injury after loosing the control and balance of his mind. Besides this, nothing has come on record which shows that the appellant was suffering from any mental imbalance. Therefore, we are not at all impressed by the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant for converting the sentence of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. Hence, the same is rejected.

Resultantly, the criminal appeal fails and is dismissed as such. The judgment and order dated 16/12/2015 passed by the learned trial court is upheld. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.