Karan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan

The instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant Karan Singh against the judgment dated 06.11.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.19/2013 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 504 & 506 IPC and sentenced as under:

Offence

Sentence

Fine

Sentence in Default of payment of fine

Under Section 302 IPC

Life imprisonment

10,000/-

1 year's rigorous imprisonment

Under Section 504 IPC

2 years' rigorous imprisonment

1,000/-

1 month's rigorous imprisonment

Under Section 506 IPC

2 year's rigorous imprisonment

1,000/-

1 month's rigorous imprisonment

Briefly, the prosecution case emanates from the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-21) of Santosh, recorded by PW-22 Banshilal, SHO, P.S. Ghantaghar, Udaipur wherein, it was alleged that on 16.05.2010 while the marriage ceremony of one Vishnu was being solemnized in their community, accused Karan Singh sounded the authorities due to which the marriage ceremony could not be solemnized as the bride was under age. He further stated that on the very day(24.05.2010), when he and his brother Jaswant @ Kalu, after having dinner, returned from Rampura and while they were sitting with friends outside the house, accused Karan Singh came there and threatened them that he will kill their entire family. Stating this, Karan Singh took out a knife from his pocket and all of a sudden, assaulted his brother Jaswant Singh by inflicting knife blows and when he tried to intervene he was also inflicted knife blows on his neck. Chandan, Mukesh, Arjun Singh, Goverdhan Singh and Jitendra intervened and took them to the hospital.

On the basis of this Parcha Bayan, a formal FIR bearing No.44/2010 was registered for the offences under Sections 324 & 307 IPC at the Police Station Ghantaghar, Udaipur and the investigation commenced in the matter.

Santosh passed away while undergoing treatment in the hospital at Ahmedabad on 25.05.2010. Injured Jaswant died on 01.06.2010 at M.B Hospital, Udaipur. Thereupon, offence under Section 302 IPC was also added to the case.

After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 302, 504 & 506 IPC against the accused-appellant.

Learned trial Court framed, read over and explained charges for the offences under Sections 302, 504 & 506 IPC to the accused-appellant who denied the same and sought trial in the matter.

During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses and 40 documents were exhibited.

The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of false evidence.

Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 06.11.2015. Hence this appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses which are not reliable and trustworthy in the present case.

He further stated that there are two informations which were received at the Police Station regarding the same incident. The formal FIR was chalked out on the basis of the Parcha Bayan (Ex.P-21) given by informant Santosh on the basis of which the FIR (Ex.P-22) was registered. The second information is the one mentioned in the Daily Diary as DD Entry No.1202 at 1:00 pm (Ex.P-39), according to which the Constable Surendra had informed on VHF that in a fight in the Variyon Ki Ghati, Santosh and Jaswant sustained injuries and they had been taken to the hospital. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the appellant, this report being earlier in point of time should have been treated as the formal first information report and in this information, the name of the present appellant has not been mentioned. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the present appellant was involved in the offence alleged at all.

Learned counsel further argues that there was no motive for the appellant to inflict fatal injuries to Santosh and Jaswant. The so called eye-witnesses in the present incident are interested witnesses as they are close relatives of the deceased persons and therefore, their testimony is not reliable.

It is argued that Suresh who was an independent witness to the incident, was intentionally withheld and was not examined by the prosecution to give the true and correct version. He further submits that the background of the appellant is absolutely clean and no other criminal case was ever registered against him.

It is therefore submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that by taking into consideration the submissions and the statements of prosecution witnesses, the learned trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, he submits that the appeal of the accused-appellant merits acceptance in the facts and circumstance of the present case.

In the alternative, he submits that as there were no repetition of blows by the accused-appellant and the incident took place in the heat of moment due to sudden provocation, the offence deserves to be toned down and converted from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. While supporting the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court, he urged that the prosecution has been able to prove the allegations levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and that there is ample evidence on record which clearly shows that the appellant was involved in the commission of offence alleged.

He further submits that the Parcha Bayan of Santosh (Ex.P-21) is complete, specific and categorical, giving minute details of the incident on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. He further submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the Parcha Bayan of Santosh who himself was injured in the incident and his statement itself is strong piece of evidence which assumed the character of a dying declaration as he passed away on 25.05.2010 i.e. the day next to sustaining the fatal injuries at the hands of the accused-appellant Karan Singh.

He further submits that PW-2 Jitendra Vari, PW-3 Smt. Narayani, PW-4 Arjun Singh, PW-6 Mukesh Vari, PW-7 Raj Kumar (the child witness), PW-9 Radheshyam and PW-10 Chandan Singh witnessed the incident and named the present appellant as the assailant in their deposition giving complete details about the incident in which the fatal injuries were inflicted by the appellant to Jaswant and Santosh.

Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the recovery of bloodstained knife (Ex.P-2) on the information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.P-24) and the postmortem report of deceased Jaswant (Ex.P-20) and the postmortem report of deceased Santosh (Ex.P-25) wherein the cause of death is shown to be the shock due to stab injuries sustained by the deceased persons which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature also lend corroboration to the prosecution case in its quest to prove the charges against the accused.

He further submits that the learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record has reached to the just and irrefutable conclusion wherein the offences alleged against the appellant have been found to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and has rightly convicted the appellant vide judgment dated 06.11.2015. He further submits that the same does not call for any interference by this Court.

We have considered the submissions made at bar and have minutely gone through the evidence on record.

The Parcha Bayan of Santosh (Ex.P-21), recorded by PW-22 Banshilal, SHO, P.S. Ghantaghar, Udaipur sets out complete details about the incident in which he and his brother Jaswant sustained knife blows at the hands of the appellant. There is no reason for us to disbelieve such statement, on the basis of which the FIR was registered.

The arguments advanced by the defence counsel that the VHF information received at the Police Station and entered in the Daily Diary as D.D. Entry No.1202 (Ex.P-39) should have been treated to be the FIR and that the formal FIR should have been registered on the basis of the Parcha Bayan of Santosh is absolutely without merit. The law is well settled by a catena of Supreme Court's judgments including the one in Ramsinh Bavaji

Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat; 1994 0 AIR(SCW) 2042 that a cryptic information received at the Police Station regarding any incident and entered in the Daily Diary cannot be treated to be a First Information Report, the said information is only for the purpose of alerting the police and ensuring that the police reach at the place of incident. Thus, the statement (Parcha Bayan) Ex.P-21 assumes character of a dying declaration, the veracity whereof cannot be doubted.

We note that the place where the incident took place was a crowded/populated area and number of persons including Arjun Singh, Vijay, Chandan Singh, Mukesh etc were present there. The eye-witnesses have deposed before the trial Court narrating the incident in chorus without much deviation. One of the eye-witnesses present at the time of incident PW-2 Jitendra Vari stated that while he was returning home after having dinner, he was accompanied by Santosh, Arjun Singh, Vijay, Chandan Singh and Mukesh and they stayed outside the house and were talking to each other. Jaswant also joined the discussion. Immediately thereafter, accused Karan Singh came around and after hurling abuses and threatening to kill the entire family, he took out a knife and inflicted fatal injuries to Santosh and Jaswant. Both the injured persons were taken to the Hospital and the accused ran away from the place of incident. Nothing significant was elicited in the cross-examination of this witness so as to doubt credibility or veracity of his evidence.

PW-3 Smt. Narayani deposed on similar lines as has been deposed by PW-2 Jitendra. She alleged in her statement that while both the injured were taken to the hospital, they were speaking.

PW-4 Arjun Singh, PW-10 Chandan Singh and PW-6 Mukesh deposed in their respective statements that while they were talking to each other, accused Karan Singh came there and started abusing Jaswant using foul language. The witnesses present at the spot tried to pacify and diffuse the situation but accused Karan Singh took out a knife and inflicted injuries to Jaswant and Santosh.

PW-21 Dr. Manish Kumar Sharma examined the injured Santosh and Jaswant and described their injuries. He also conducted postmortem upon body of the deceased Jaswant on 01.06.2010. The cause of death of deceased Jaswant was opined as septicemic shock due to sharp weapon injuries sustained in the liver which were antemortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

PW-24 Dr. Alpesh Shah conducted autopsy upon body of the deceased Santosh and issued the postmortem report Ex.P-25 elaborating dimensions of the injuries and the cause of death was opined to be the stab injury on the neck causing shock and hemorrhage.

PW-22 Banshilal while being posted as SHO, P.S. Ghantaghar, Udaipur carried out the investigation in the present matter. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, arrested the accused, prepared the memos and after completion of investigation as per the procedure prescribed in law submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-appellant.

We find that the ocular evidence in the shape of eye-witness account mentioned is reliable and worth credence. Presence of the eye-witness at the spot is also natural and very well explained in their statements.

It is a Gospel truth that normally a person who is on the death bed or who is seriously injured will not tell a lie, therefore, sanctity of the statement of Santosh wherein he has stated that knife blows were inflicted to him and Jaswant in the present case gets corroborated with other eye-witnesses.

The statements of eye-witnesses are amply corroborated from medical evidence as the statements of PW-21 Dr. Manish Kumar Sharma and PW-24 Dr. Alpesh Shah who described the dimensions of the injuries present on the body of the deceased Santosh and Jaswant thus, making the entire story absolutely reliable and free of doubt and, therefore, there is no reason for us to disbelieve the statements of the eye-witnesses merely because they are of same caste and are closely known to each other. The presence of these witnesses is clearly established at the scene of occurrence and their testimony cannot be doubted for any reason whatsoever.

We are gainfully supported by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganapathi & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu; 2018(2) RCC (SC) 652 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"12. The evidence of ocular witnesses, PWs 1 and 2, father and brother of the deceased, clearly exhibits the way in which the accused took away the life of deceased Murugan. Their evidence narrates the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and corroborates with that of the medical evidence. Dr. Danraj (PW12) who conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Murugan, had pointed out as many as 10 cut injuries out of which injury Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are fatal which were possible by sickle and capable of causing death whereas injury Nos. 7 and 9 were possible by knife. It appears that there were two independent witnesses (PWs 5 and 6) projected by the prosecution, but they have turned hostile. In several cases, only the family members are present at the time of incident, then the case of the prosecution will be based only on their evidence. When their evidence is the only evidence available, Courts should be cautious and meticulously evaluate the evidence in the process of trial and we are not able to appreciate the contention on behalf of the accused that the non-examination of independent witnesses and conviction based on the evidence of family members is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested' [See: State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and Anr. (1981) 2 SCC 752].

Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made [See : Maranadu and Anr. Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (2008) 16 SCC 529].

Here in the case, PWs 1 and 2, though father and brother of the deceased, are natural witnesses and there is no bar in law in examining family members or any other person as witnesses. Their testimonies provided clear picture of the attack carried on by the accused over the deceased. We find from the record that the evidences of PWs 1 & 2 are consistent and inspire confidence in the mind of the Court. The Courts below have also properly scrutinized their evidence before taking them into account and there is nothing unusual in believing their testimonies. Apart from that, the prosecution has examined the independent witnesses PWs 5 & 6 who turned hostile. The prosecution has taken all possible steps to bring home the guilt of the accused. Hence conviction based on evidence of PWs 1 & 2 is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

Similarly, the evidence of Sakunthala (PW3) clearly depicted the circumstance and narrated the way in which the deceased Poomari was attacked by the accused explaining the role played by each of the Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Her evidence has the credibility and it clearly corroborated with that of the medical evidence. The postmortem report of the deceased Poomari (Ext. P16) shows that there were about 10 cut injuries besides three stab injuries on the body of the deceased. According to PW12-Dr. Danraj, the cut injuries were possible by sickle and the stab injuries were possibly caused by knife. Among all those injuries, injury Nos. 1, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are grave and capable of causing death instantaneously.

The argument of the learned counsel for the accused that the Courts below erred in disbelieving the evidence of DW-1, cannot be accepted for the reason that it is manifest on record that all the students were marked as present in the attendance register (Ext. D1) of the school in which PW3 was studying, for a continuous period of seven months i.e. from June 1999 to December 1999, and there was not even a single absentee. Thus it is indicative of the fact that irrespective of the fact whether the students have attended the school or not, attendance was marked to all the students. In those circumstances, neither the evidence of DW1 nor Ext. D1 will come to the rescue of the accused and on this count, the evidence of PW3 cannot be disbelieved.

Giving our consideration to the circumstances in totality, we cannot find fault with the view taken by the High Court in convicting the accused whose guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. For all the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error in appreciation of evidence or any error of law in the judgment passed by the High Court. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed."

We are also benefited by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohabbat Vs. State of MP; (2009) 13 SCC 630 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"12. Merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the Accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. We shall also deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version.

13 '5.... Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.

To the same effect are the decisions in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh; (1974) 3 SCC 277, Lehna v. State of Haryana; (2002) 3 SCC 76 (SCC pp. 81-82, paras 5-9) and Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa; (2002) 8 SCC 381.

The above position was also highlighted in Babulal Bhagwan Khandare v. State of Maharashtra; (2005) 10 SCC 404, Salim Sahab v. State of M.P.; (2007) 1 SCC 699 and Sonelal v. State of M.P.; (2008) 14 SCC 692 (SCC pp. 695-97, paras 12-13)."

The arguments with respect to an independent person Suresh having not been examined as a prosecution witness is noted to be rejected as it was always open for the defence to produce him in the witness box if he was of any help to the accused to prove his innocence.

We are not persuaded/convinced by the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that there was no motive and the injuries were not repeated and that the offence should be toned down for the simple reason that the accused used a dangerous sharp edged weapon i.e. a knife inflicted stab injury upon the vital organs of the two deceased Santosh and Jaswant inflicting fatal injuries and that too after abusing and using foul language shows that the appellant was carrying an intention to kill Santosh and Jaswant. Merely, the fact that the accused does not have any criminal antecedents, he would not have any bearing on the nature of the offence because he acted in an extremely cruel manner while mercilessly stabbing two young men to death. Thus, there does not exist any ground on the record of the case which can persuade us to tone down the offence from the charge under Section 302 IPC.

In view of whatever stated above, the present appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the learned trial Court dated 06.11.2015 is upheld. The record of the trial Court be returned forthwith.