Kishan Lal @ Krishan Lal vs State of Rajasthan

The learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar by the judgment and order impugned dated 16.9.2005 recorded conviction of accused appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. and awarded sentence as under:-

The facts of the case as unfolded in the judgment impugned are that a statement made by Smt. Mahendra Devi (PW-1) on 24.7.2004 at Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar was reduced in writing and on basis of that an FIR (Exh. P/1) was lodged at Police Station, Chunavad. As per the facts stated, Mahendra Devi, a married daughter of accused Krishan Lal came to her parental house from the day she came, the accused left his own house and was residing with his brother Ved Prakash. In the morning of 24.7.2004, when Smt. Mahendra was washing clothes in bathroom, her father came and gave a ''kassi'' blow on her shoulder and arms. Hearing the screams made by Mahendra, her mother Guddo came and asked the reason for beating the girl. Other family members Kalu Ram, Ram Pratap and Sultan were also present there. The accused Krishan Lal then left his daughter and ran behind Smt. Guddo. He gave ''kassi'' blows to her, consequently she died.

During the course of investigation the accused was arrested and at his instance a blood stained ''kassi'' was recovered. Autopsy was also conducted on the corpus of deceased Smt. Guddo Devi and as per report of that, she had four incised wounds on her vital parts. The cause of death given was excessive bleeding due to serious injuries and fractures occurred in head and skull. The injuries suffered by Mahendra too were examined and she was having nine incised wounds, out of those, injury No. 3 was a grievous one. She also remained hospitalized and looking to her serious condition, her dying declaration was also recorded by the competent Magistrate and that is available on record as Exh. D/1. A charge-sheet after completion of investigation was filed before the competent court and that committed the same to the court of sessions. The Sessions Court after hearing accused and learned Public Prosecutor, framed charge against the accused appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. On denial of the same, trial commenced as desired.

The prosecution supported its case with the aid of 16 witnesses, out of whom PW-1 Mahendra Devi, PW-2 Sarbati Devi, PW-3 Ram Pratap and PW-4 Ved Prakash were cited as eye-witnesses. Dr. Darshan Singh (PW-10) adduced medical evidence and PW-16 Dinesh Kumar narrated all the steps taken during the course of investigation, being Investigating Officer. The prosecution also got 15 documents exhibited to substantiate the charge. An opportunity was accorded to the accused to explain adverse and incriminating circumstances appearing against him in prosecution evidence. While availing this opportunity, accused while denying his involvement in the crime in-question tried to explain that his daughter Mahendra was having pre-martial relations with Ram Pratap Godara. She was maintaining this relation even after her marriage. He tried to restrain her but deceased Guddo and his son Balram were not supporting him. On the fateful day he saw Mahendra sitting with Ram Pratap. On being annoyed, he gave ''kassi'' blow to Mahendra. Ram Pratap fled from the place, but in the meantime Guddo came there. She tried to save Ram Pratap as well as Mahendra. During this quarrel, Guddo received injury from ''kassi'' and she died. He also stated that his in laws implicated him in a false case. In defence two documents, those are, the so-called dying declaration made by Mahendra and statement of Balram given u/s 161 Cr.P.C., were exhibited. The trial court after examining the entire evidence available on record, recorded conviction of the accused and sentenced him accordingly.

In appeal, the only argument advanced by learned Amicus Curiae Shri Firoz Khan is that even by accepting the prosecution case, the offence committed by the appellant does not travel beyond the offence punishable u/s 304 Part-I I.P.C. According to learned counsel, the accused became annoyed by seeing his married daughter Mahendra with Ram Pratap and, therefore, he gave ''kassi'' blow to her. The entire incident is an outcome of sudden provocation due to then existing circumstance.

While opposing the appeal, learned Public Prosecutor urged that there is no evidence available on record to establish that Ram Pratap was present at the spot and the accused saw his daughter with him. It is further submitted that even by accepting the explanation given by the accused, the offence committed by him is nothing but murder as he gave repeated injuries to his wife Smt. Guddo.

We have examined the entire evidence available on record and also considered the rival submissions.

Looking to the medical evidence available on record, it is not in dispute about homicidal death of Smt. Guddo. The medical evidence also establishes serious injuries received by Mahendra on her vital parts. As a matter of fact, homicidal death of Guddo and injuries on vital parts of injured Mahendra are accepted even by learned counsel for the appellant.

Mahendra Devi (PW-1), the injured eye-witness in quite specific terms stated that on the fateful day she was washing clothes and at that time her father accused Krishan Lal came there and gave ''kassi'' blows to her. She suffered several injuries and also remained hospitalized. Her statements by the police was recorded at Government Hospital. As per this witness, after receiving ''kassi'' blow, she fell down and lost her consciousness, however, prior to that she saw her mother Guddo came there and accused Krishan Lal gave ''kassi'' blows to her also.

Sarbati Devi (PW-2) is wife of Shri Ved Prakash (brother of accused Krishan Lal). Incidentally she also happens to be the sister of deceased Smt. Guddo. This witness in detail narrated all the facts. As per this witness, accused Krishan Lal was a gambler and drunkard. He was in the habit of beating his wife. On the fateful day at about 10-10.30 am when she was collecting clothes lying in courtyard, accused Krishan Lal entered in house. At that time, she heard that Guddi was asking him that why he was beating to girl Mahendra. She then came to the spot and saw Krishan Lal giving repeated ''kassi'' blows on the head of Guddo. At the first instance, on receiving a ''kassi'' blow, Guddo fell down and then she tried to stand up but her husband Krishan Lal again gave several ''kassi'' blows to her. At that time Ram Pratap and Ved Prakash were also there. They intervened and tried to stop accused Krishan Lal from giving ''kassi'' blows to Guddo. Guddo died at the spot. Her head was having serious injuries and blood was oozing. Accused Krishan Lal was wearing shirt and pyjama and that received blood stains. Mahendra was also lying down nearby, wherefrom she was taken to hospital. This witness denied presence of Ram Pratap (the alleged friend of Mahendra Devi). She also clarified that name of her uncle-in-law is also Ram Pratap and he was present at the spot.

Ram Pratap (PW-3) is uncle of accused Krishan Lal and was cited as eye-witness, however, he has not supported the prosecution case. This witness stated that he saw Ved Prakash holding Krishan Lal and saying that the girl has received injuries; let arrangements be made to take her to hospital.

Ved Prakash (PW-4), who is real brother of accused Krishan Lal, stated that on the fateful day at about 10-10.30 am he heard screams of Mahendra. He also saw Krishan Lal carrying a stick in his hand. He also saw Guddo Devi asking Krishan Lal as to why he was beating the girl. As per this witness, krishan Lal answered that he will kill her also. Guddo Devi then went towards the fields of Ram Pratap. Krishan Lal gave certain stick blows to Guddo Devi. This witness was declared hostile in view of the fact that he did not support prosecution case about giving ''kassi'' blows to deceased Guddo. This witness in cross-examination stated that Ram Pratap Godara was not present at the spot and it is wrong to say that Mahendra was having objectionable relations with Ram Pratap Godara. This witness further denied that the accused Krishan Lal saw Mahendra Devi with Ram Pratap in compromising condition. He also denied that Mahendra came in between accused and Ram Pratap Godara to save Ram Pratap Godara and, therefore, received injuries.

On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that on the fateful day Krishan Lal entered into the house and gave certain blows to Smt. Mahendra Devi. As per Smt. Mahendra Devi herself and eye-witness Smt. Sarbati Devi, the weapon of offence was ''kassi''. A blood stained ''kassi'' was also recovered at the instance of accused Krishan Lal. ''kassi'' is a sharp edged weapon and the injuries received by Mahendra and deceased Guddo are incised wounds. The medical evidence clearly indicates that incised wounds received would have been given by ''kassi'' only and not by a stick, as stated by Ved Prakash. It is also pertinent to note that ''kassi'' was found with blood stains matching with the blood group of deceased Smt. Guddo. The evidence adduced by the eye-witnesses clearly indicates that the accused gave ''kassi'' blows to Mahendra Devi as well as to Smt. Guddo. Smt. Mahendra Devi received serious injuries and Smt. Guddo succumbed to the injuries and died at the spot, as such, involvement of accused Krishan Lal in the crime in-question is established beyond reasonable doubt.

The only issue now survives is about identification of the crime so committed. Smt. Mahendra received nine injuries mostly on her neck, shoulder and arms. The injury received at neck is grievous one. Neck is a very vital part of human body and giving grievous injury there may cause death of a person, as such, causing grievous injury by sharp weapon on neck and further repeated injuries on other parts indicates that the accused was attempting to commit murder, especially, looking to the circumstances that when Smt. Guddo intervened in the matter, he gave serious blows to her also, as such, we are having no doubt about the commission of offence punishable u/s 307 I.P.C. by the accused Krishan Lal.

So far as the offence punishable u/s 302 I.P.C. is concerned, that too has been established beyond any shadow of doubt. The accused was certainly having intention to kill Smt. Guddo and that is apparent from the repeated injuries given. As per the medical evidence Smt. Guddo was having following injuries:-

5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep incised wound in right side of head in occipital region.

7 cm x 1 � cm x bone deep incised wound which is above 2 cm from injury No. 1 in occipital region. The brain matter was coming out and the broken bones were clearly visible.

2� cm x 1 cm incised wound on right ear.

3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep lacerated wound behind right ear. Broken bone is clearly visible.

On internal examination, a fracture of temporal bone in the area of 8 x 7 cms the skull bone broken in several pieces and brain matter was coming out from the temporal side having fracture of 7 cms.

Fracture of partial bone upto posterior and middle brain. Serious cutting in duro matter and also in occipital, temporal region. The brain matter having blood clots. All the injuries were ante-mortem.

If the accused would have given ''kassi'' blow to Mahendra Devi due to sudden provocation of circumstance, then he would have stopped himself at least on being restrained by Guddo. Instead of keeping restrain he gave serious blows on vital parts of Guddo. The repeated blows clearly indicates his cruelty and intention for killing, as such, the argument advanced that the offence committed by the accused does not travel beyond the offence punishable u/s 304 Part-I I.P.C. is having no force.

We do not find any just reason to deviate from the findings arrived by the trial court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the trial court is affirmed.