Nathu @ Nathu Lal vs State of Rajasthan

Govind Mathur, J.—By the judgment dated 22.05.2003, learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Udaipur convicted the accused appellant for the offences punishable u/s 302 and commission of offence u/s 325 IPC, and sentenced him for life term with a fine of Rs. 100/-and further to undergone one month rigorous imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine for commission of offence u/s 302 IPC. For commission of offence u/s 325 IPC, the accused appellant is sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-and further to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 12.09.02 at about 6 PM, statement of one Nathu lal Meghwal (Ex.D/2) was drawn wherein, he stated that at about 5 PM, his son-in-law gave certain knife blows to Smt. Sakku Bai, aged 32 years. Smt. Sakku Bai was married with accused Nathu about 15 years earlier and since marriage, he was ill-treating and torturing her. At about five years earlier, a sword blow was given by the accused to Smt. Sakku Bai, consequent thereto she lost her thumb. After the incident aforesaid, Sakku Bai was residing at Thor with her father. From last about 1 2 years, accused appellant too came to Thor and was residing with Smt. Sakku Bai, however, his behaviour and attitude with his wife was not appropriate and he was in habit of quarreling with his wife. On the day of incident, Sakku Bai was all alone at home and at that time, accused came there, entered in the room by breaking the door and gave knife blows on her head, neck, hands etc. On hearing hue and cry made by Sakku Bai, Ratan lal, Narayan and Smt. Gheesi Bai reached at the spot and tried to save her. However, accused twisted the hand of Smt. Gheesi Bai and again gave 3-4 knife blows to Sakku Bai, consequent there to, she died.

On basis of the information aforesaid, a case was lodged, investigation was made, the accused was charge-sheeted for an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused was charged for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 325 IPC, on denial of the same, he was tried.

The prosecution supported its case with the aid of 12 witnesses out of whom PW/2 Gheesi Bai, PW/3 Narayan and PW/4 Ratan lal are cited as eye-witnesses. PW/11 Dr. Akhilesh Sharma conducted autopsy on the body of Sakku Bai, thus, he proved the postmortem report Ex.P/15. Dr. Akhilesh Sharma also examined injured Gheesi Bai and thus, proved injury report Ex.P/13. As per postmortem report Ex.P/15, the body of Sakku Bai was having 13 ante-mortem injuries and the cause of death given was shock which was due to cumulative effect of injuries suffered. Injury No. 10 was also found sufficient to cause death.

PW/12 Jitender Kumar was the Investigating Officer, thus he narrated the steps taken during the course of investigation. As per this witness, on the basis of information given as per Ex.P/18 by the accused appellant, recovery of a knife and a blood stained shirt was made as per Ex.P/6.

Ex.P/20 is the report availed from Forensic Science Laboratory, Udaipur and as per that saree, blouse of the deceased, blood smeared soil collected from the place of occurrence, shirt of accused and the knife recovered at the instance of accused were found stained with B group of blood.

PW/1 Nathu is father of deceased Sakku, and as per him, he received information regarding the incident, when he was watching ''Gawri'' performance. On reaching at the spot, he found his daughter lying on the floor with number of knife wounds. This witness also stated that his sister-in-law Smt. Gheesi Bai too was injured as her hand was twisted by the accused. As per this witness, his brother Ganesh and neighbours Ratan lal and Narayan too were present at the spot.

PW/2 Smt. Gheesi Bai is an injured eye-witness and she stated that on the fateful day, accused Nathu came and gave number of knife blows on head, neck and hand of Smt. Sakku. As per this witness, Narayan and Ratan lal too came on the spot on hearing hue and cry made by deceased Sakku. In cross-examination, this witness stated that she alongwith Sakku reached at home at about 5 PM after discharging their employmental duties.

PW/3 Narayan and PW/4 Ratan lal too supported the prosecution case and as per these witnesses also, accused gave several knife blows to Smt. Sakku, consequent to which, she died.

Learned trial court relying upon the statements of eyewitnesses, recovery of articles including weapon of offence, medical evidence and serological examination report, held the accused appellant guilty for the commission of offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. The trial court on the basis of statements given by Smt. Gheesi Bai and injury report Ex.P/13, also held the accused guilty for the commission of offence punishable u/s 325 IPC. Accordingly, conviction was recorded and sentence was awarded.

In appeal, contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that there are lot of contradictions in the statements of eyewitnesses and as such, these are not at all reliable. It is also pointed out that the recovery was made from an open place and therefore, the same too is not at all worth credence. According to learned Counsel, a reasonable doubt exists in believing the prosecution case and as such the conviction recorded is erroneous.

We have considered the arguments advanced and also scrutinized the record.

Learned Counsel for the appellant at the first instance pointed out some contradictions in the statements of PW/3 Narayan and PW/4 Ratan lal. It is pointed out that as per PW/3 Narayan, when he reached at the spot, Nathu was already present at the spot and as such, the story developed by the prosecution regarding PW/1 Nathu, on whose instance the investigation was initiated, is not reliable.

A minor contradiction is required to be ignored when a definite statement is made by an eye-witness, which is adequately corroborated by other witnesses and also by the medical and scientific evidences. In the case in hand, quite a definite statement is made by PW/2 Gheesi Bai and that is adequately corroborated by other witnesses, as such, the contradiction pointed out is too minor to affect the prosecution case adversely.

Other argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that Ratan lal was not at all an eye witness of the incident in view of the fact that he did not enter into the room, where the crime is said to be committed. We do not find any force in this argument also, in view of the fact that Ratan lal (PW/4) quite specifically stated that he saw the entire incident from main gate of the premises concerned. There is no doubt even created or suggested regarding low visibility conditions at the time of incident i.e. about 5 PM in evening.

It is also urged that PW/2 Smt. Gheesi Bai is also not reliable witness in view of the fact that she became un-conscious on getting her hand twisted by accused appellant. On examination of statement of Smt. Gheesi Bai, we are of the view that she quite emphatically and with all confidence narrated the entire incident. True it is, she stated that she became un-conscious after getting injured, however, as per her statement, prior to that, she saw accused Nathu coming to the spot, armed with a knife, entering into the house by breaking the door and then giving several knife blows on the head, neck and hands of deceased Sakku. In this factual position, we do not find any reason to accept that this witness was not in position to witness the incident.

At last, it is also stated that as per PW/2 Gheesi Bai, Narayan and Ratan lal reached at the spot subsequent to the entire occurrence and as such, these persons cannot be cited and treated as eye-witnesses. This argument is of no consequence, in view of the fact that quite confident statement made by Gheesi Bai, corroborated by medical and scientific evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of accused person.

In view of the discussion above, we are of the view that prosecution adequately established its case and thus, no error is committed by the trial court in convicting and sentencing the accused appellant. This appeal, therefore, is having no merit, hence dismissed.