Major Singh @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

By filing the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity and propriety of the judgment dated 03/08/2011 passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge No.1 Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 32/2011, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and

sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.40,000/- in default of payment of fine, further to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution story as unfolded in the complaint lodged by Baljit Kaur W/o the accused Major Singh reveals that the applicant Baljit Kaur is the

wife of Major Singh, R/o.Ward No.1, Sureshia Colony, Hanumangarh. She stays in the house with her husband Major Singh and son Balvindra Singh

@ Billu. Her husband is a man of bad character. 15-20 days back, Major Singh after having quarrelled with her left the house and did not return.

Yesterday i.e. on 16/12/2008, at around 1 p.m., she along with her son went to Heernawali after having locked her house. She handed over the keys

of her house to Dilip Singh who is her neighbour. Today at around 7:30 a.m., wife of Dilip telephoned her and informed that a boy is lying dead in her

house. She also told that yesterday at around 8-8:30 p.m., Major Singh came to her house and went inside the house after breaking the lock open.

Now, the gate is closed from inside, therefore, she should come immediately. Getting this information, she along with Baldev Singh rushed back from

Heernawali to her house and saw from the top of the wall that a boy was lying dead in a pool of blood. Somebody has killed a boy whose age is 10-12

years. Her husband was seen by neighbours to have visited the house. It is possible that her husband Major Singh has murdered the boy who had

come with him.

On this information, a formal F.I.R. was registered and investigation was conducted and challan was filed under Section 302 IPC against the accused

appellant.

Learned trial Court framed charges against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302. The accused denied the same and preferred trial

in the matter.

During the trial, as many as 16 prosecution witnesses were examined and in all 62A documents were exhibited.

Thereafter, accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the evidence adduced during trial to which he

denied and submitted that he is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the matter.

Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on both the sides and after taking into consideration the statements of witnesses and the

documents exhibited, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and passed the sentence as stated here-in-

above.

For appreciating the facts in the present case, we have scanned the statements recorded during the trial along with documents produced and exhibited

before the trial Court.

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

P.W.5 Baljit Kaur has deposed before the trial Court that she is married to the accused for last about 20 years and is staying at Sureshia for last 5-6

years. Immediately after the marriage, the accused was fighting with her. He is a vagabond and a Gunda. 5-6 months back, one day before the

incident, she went to Heernawali with her son Balvindra Singh. On the next day, Dilip and his wife who are her neighbours informed her on telephone

that a boy is lying dead in her house. She was further informed by them that Major Singh had visited her house in the evening. Major Singh left the

home 15 to 20 days back after fighting with her. She told that there was a boy along with Major Singh who after breaking the lock of the house

entered in the house and after climbing on the Kothe, has used foul language and if she would have been in the house, she would have also been killed.

She was telephoned at 7.30, in the morning. She reached from Heernawali along with Baldev Singh and when she looked into her house, she saw a

boy lying dead with blood spread all over. The main gate was locked from inside then she along with Baldev Singh went to Police Station and lodged

the report Ex.P.10 under her thump impression. The F.I.R was registered which is Ex.P.11. The police came to the spot and during investigation

prepared the memos on which her thump impression was attested.

In the cross-examination, she has stated that the face of the dead body was in such a distorted condition that it was beyond recognition. She has

denied the illicit relationship with Baldev Singh.

PW.2 Sukhdeep @ Shila stated that he knows accused Major Singh. He was brought by Police in the Gurudwara located near Hanuman Temple in

I.T.I. Colony. On the information of Major Singh, a blanket was got recovered having blood stains on it. Before the said recovery, Major Singh came

to Gurudwara in the 12th Month of year and was completely drunk. He confessed before him that he has committed a mistake by killing an innocent

boy. The murder was committed in Sureshia. He further submitted that after having dinner in the Gurudwara, he slept there and went away in the next

morning.

PW.3 Amarjit Kaur is the sister of Baljit Kaur wife of accused Major Singh. She stated that she has two sons and one daughter. The younger one is

Gurprit who is dead. Two days prior to the death of her son Gurprit, accused Major Singh came to her and told that he will take away Gurprit, her son

for getting him admitted in the school at Hanumangarh for his studies. No expenses will be incurred for his education. She then sent her son Gurprit

with the accused who took Gurprit to Hanumangarh Junction. After two days, Major Singh called her and said that he has admitted her son in the

School at Hanumangarh. Thereafter, when she went to see her son Gurprit, she could not meet him. Four month’s back, police came to her

residence to collect the information about her kids. Police showed her the photograph of Gurprit and then she admitted that deceased Gurprit is her

son. Major Singh accompanied the police. Major Singh after having killed Gurprit threw the dead body in the house of Baljit Kaur to falsely implicate

her wife Baljit Kaur because of enmity between them.

PW.6 Surendra Bahari while posted as the Medical Officer in Hanumangarh has conducted the postmortem of the boy and has stated that there were

30 injuries on the body of the deceased. All injuries were of incised wound on almost all the part of the body with different dimension. All the injuries

have been noted in his statement. He has stated that the cause of death is “multiple injuries of incised wound on the body of the deceased causing

excessive loss of bloodâ€​. All the injuries were caused by the sharp edged weapon.

PW.7 Ram Pratap is the Investigating Officer who has conducted the investigation, prepared the Fard or site plan etc. and has also recorded the

statements of prosecution witnesses and completed the investigation in accordance with the provisions of law.

PW.10 Baldev Singh has stated that he accompanied Baljit Kaur to Police Station Hanumangarh Junction for registering the F.I.R. and has stated that

when they reached house of Baljit Kaur in Ward No.1, Sureshia, Hanumangarh, they saw the boy lying with his head down on the floor in a pool of

blood.

The other witnesses are the witnesses who have attested their signatures on different memos prepared during the course of investigation and have

supported the prosecution story.

The recoveries of iron Kapa and the blood stained clothes are effected after the accused has given the information under Section 27 of the Evidence

Act. The blood stained Kapa, clothes of the deceased and blood stained blanket by which the deceased was covered were sent to the Forensic

Science Laboratory and on examination of the same, it was reported that exhibits were found to be having blood stains of human origin. The

postmortem report Ex.P.15 has mentioned 30 injuries on the body of the deceased and the cause of death is opined to be the multiple incised wound on

vital parts of the body leading to excessive bleeding and hemorrhage.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no eye-witness

of the incident, nor there is any clinching evidence to prove the offence alleged against the appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove the offence

alleged beyond reasonable doubt. There are material contradictions in the statements recorded by the prosecution and the appellant has been falsely

implicated in the present case only on the ground that his wife was keeping a hostile attitude towards him. He has been falsely implicated in this case

just to take the revenge. Learned counsel further submits that there is no witness in the present case who has stated that the appellant after entering

the house has killed the deceased boy. The recovery of Kapa is made from an open space. The chain of circumstances not being complete and there

is no direct evidence in the matter, it will not be appropriate and safe to convict the appellant in the present case. The prosecution has miserably failed

to collect and connect the pieces of evidence in such a fashion that chain of circumstance is complete which indicates that accused Major Singh is the

only person who has actually killed the deceased boy.

Learned counsel further submits that present is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence available on record to connect the

appellant with the alleged crime. He further submits that there is no evidence of last seen i.e.

 “deceased was seen alive lastly in the company of accused Major Singhâ€​.

Learned counsel therefore, prays that appeal of the accused-appellant may be allowed and the judgment impugned passed by the learned trial Court

may be quashed and set aside.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment under challenge and vehemently argued that the charge against the accused-

appellant has been proved by the evidence produced on record and there is no deviation in the statements recorded during the course of trial. There

are no contradictions in the statements recorded of the prosecution witnesses. He submits that the conviction has rightly been made by the learned

trial Court on the basis of recovery and the same is not required to be interfered by this Court as the prosecution has been able to prove the offence

committed by the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record of the trial

Court.

The evidence on record shows that the telephonic call made by PW.1 Jaginder Kaur to PW.5 Baljit Kaur in the morning at 7:30 disclosing the fact that

the accused entered their house i.e. the house of Baljit Kaur and Major Singh after breaking the lock, and thereafter, the next morning the body of

young boy lying dead in the pool of blood shows that it was the accused Major Singh who has killed the boy and none-else. The fact that the deceased

boy was taken away from his mother also gets corroboration from the testimony of PW.3 Amarjit Kaur, the mother of the deceased to the extent that

the present accused took her son on the pretext that he will get him impart free education from the School situated in Hanumangarh. The chain further

gets completed by the recovery of dead body from the house of accused in the absence of his wife and son coupled with the medical evidence

confirming the injuries sustained by sharp edged weapon on the body of deceased, which was recovered on the information supplied by the accused

under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

In the present case, two witnesses i.e. PW.4 Gurcharan Singh and PW.10 Baldev Singh who in their deposition have stood by the recovery of weapon

of offence. The prosecution story further gets strengthened by the deposition of PW.2 Sudhdeep @ Sheela who has deposed that in Gurudwara when

he met the accused, he has confessed before him that he has committed a mistake of killing an innocent boy at Sureshia. The chain of events get

completed by the result of the Forensic Science Laboratory Report which show that the presence of human blood on the articles sent to it i.e. the

clothes of the deceased boy, the weapon of offence i.e. Kapa and the blanket, which were recovered on the information having been given under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act by the accused.

There is no doubt to disbelieve the story of the prosecution and the statement of the wife herself that the present murder has been committed by her

husband and body has been thrown in the house to falsely implicate her in the present case. The statement of PW.3 Amarjit Kaur that it was the

accused who has taken away his son for imparting the education is a witness of last seen when the boy was alive and seen alive in the company of

Major Singh and the other persons staying in the neighbourhood have also deposed that the accused have entered the house at around 8-8:30 p.m. on

the previous night i.e. 15/12/2008. In our view, learned trial Court has examined the witnesses and the material placed before it in right perspective

and has rightly concluded that it is the appellant and the appellant alone who has committed the offence alleged of murdering the 10 years old boy.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonu @ Amar Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2017 SC 3441 has held that in the case of

circumstantial evidence, certain principles are to be followed which are as under:

“1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly established.

The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability,

the crime was committed by the accused and none else.

The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the

guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.â€​

In the present case, we find that all the factors mentioned in the judgment of Sonu @ Amar vs. State of Harayana (supra) are verbatim applied.

In view of whatever stated above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 03/08/2011 passed by trial Court and the same is

affirmed.

Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.