Nar Bahadur vs State of H.P.

Sanjay Karol, J.—Appellant-convict Nar Bahadur, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 26.5.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No. 9-S/7 of 2009, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nar Bahadur, whereby he stands convicted of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

It is the case of prosecution that on 2.11.2008, Smt. Sonia (PW-1), after taking dinner, was sleeping with her children in her room. He father-in-law (accused) was sleeping in the other room. At night, she heard some noise. She got up and saw the accused with a Drat in his hand. He killed his wife-Chitarkala. She immediately woke up her brother-in-law (Jeth), Sanjeev Bahadur (PW-2), who was sleeping closeby. PW-2 came with his wife Smt. Renu. Seeing all of them, accused fled away from the spot with the Drat (Ex. P-5). The matter was reported to the police at Police Station Kotkhai, where an entry was recorded in the Daily Diary Register. Statement (Ex. PA) of Sonia (PW-1), under the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded by the police, on the basis of which FIR No. 99 dated 3.11.2008 (Ex. PW-7/A), under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station, Kotkhai. SI Tambeshwar Thakur (PW-9) proceeded to the spot to conduct investigation. Inquest report (Ex. PW-9/F) was prepared and dead body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Dhruv Gupta (PW-3). During investigation, accused made disclosure statement (Ex. PW-4/A) in the presence of Raman Sawant (PW-4), and got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. Drat (TokA)(Ex. P-5). Accused also got recovered blood stained bedding, i.e. Dari (Ex. P-3), Chaddar (Ex. P-4) and his clothes, i.e. shirt (Ex. P-1) and Pyjama (Ex. P-2). Photographs (Ex. PW-9/B to Ex. PW-9/D) were taken on the spot and spot map (Ex. PW-9/G) prepared. Police, after conducting necessary investigation on the spot and obtaining reports (Ex. PX, PY & PZ) from the Forensic Science Laboratory, filed the challan in Court for trial.

Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and statement of the accused u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence.

Based on the testimonies of witnesses and other material placed on record, trial Court convicted the accused of offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties on both sides, we are of the considered view that trial Court has correctly and completely appreciated the testimony of prosecution witnesses. We do not find any infirmity or reason sufficient enough to interfere with the judgment rendered by the trial Court.

Significantly, in the instant case, immediately after occurrence of the incident, accused was found with a weapon of offence in his hand. Also, he fled away from the spot. He killed his own wife. The witnesses, in the instant case, are his own son and daughter-in-law. Accused murdered his wife on the ground of mere suspicion of having illicit relationship with someone else (not named), which fact neither stands proved nor established or probablized on record.

Dr. Dhruv Gupta (PW-3), who conducted the postmortem and issued report (Ex. PW-3/B), has clearly deposed that deceased suffered three incised wounds on head, face and neck. Injuries were inflicted in the middle of the night. The doctor opined the cause of death to be trauma of cut throat wound of neck and head injury at temporal region leading to excessive haemmorrhage, asphyxia due to blood in respiratory path way and air embolism leading to cardio-respiratory arrest. He is categorical that such injuries could be sustained with the weapon of offence, i.e. Toka (Ex. P-5).

To establish guilt of the accused in relation to the crime, we find testimony of both Sonia (PW-1) and Sanjeev Bahadur (PW-2), daughter-in-law and son of the accused, to be absolutely inspiring in confidence.

PW-1 categorically states that on 2.11.2008, after taking dinner, she slept with her mother-in-law in the room and her father-in-law (accused) slept in the kitchen. At that time, her daughter was also sleeping with her. In the middle of night, she heard some noise. She got up and saw the accused in her room with a Drat, with which he killed the deceased. When she raised alarm, accused threatened to kill her. She pushed the accused and ran out of the room to call her brother-in-law Sanjeev Bahadur (PW-2), who alongwith his wife Renu, came immediately. Seeing them accused fled away from the spot. We find that she has withstood the test of cross-examination by the accused. She clarifies that light of the room was on and as such could see the accused give a blow with the Drat to the deceased. She further clarifies that accused got married twice and from his first wife had five children. PW-2 was born through the deceased. She denies having nursed any grudge against the accused. In fact, there was no reason for the complainant to have any.

Version of PW-1 stands materially corroborated by PW-2. We do not find any contradiction in that regard. He categorically states that PW-1 informed him that accused had killed the deceased. He adds that he brought the child, who was sleeping inside the room and handed her over to PW-1. He further states that other persons namely Ramu, Balbir and Ranjor Singh reached the spot. Thereafter, matter was reported to the police.

Thus, in our considered view, these witnesses, through their unrebutted testimony, have fully established the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. They are clear, consistent and cogent in their deposition.

That apart, we find that Raman Sawant (PW-4) has also proved the prosecution case of disclosure statement made by the accused, in his presence to the Investigating Officer ASI Anokhi Ram (PW-10). Even PW-10 is categorical that on the basis of such disclosure statement (Ex. PW-4/A), accused got recovered the weapon of offence (Ex. P-5) and blood stained articles. SI Tambeshwar (PW-9) has also deposed with regard to recovery of blood stained articles of accused from the spot. We find that these articles were sent for chemical analysis and reports (Ex. PX, PY & PZ) corroborate the prosecution case with regard to human blood having been found on them.

We do not find any infirmity with the testimony of HC Sita Ram (PW-6), who was officiating as MHC, Police Station, Kotkhai; HC Shyam Lal (PW-7), who sent the articles through Constable Pradeep Kumar (PW-8) to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. The seals were intact and the sealed articles were kept in safe custody.

In our considered view, prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence, not only ocular but also corroborative in the shape of recovery of weapon of offence.

For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity in correct and/or in complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

We place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered to the Court by Shri Vinay Thakur, Advocate, learned Legal Aid Counsel, for the accused.

Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.