Niranjan vs State of Rajasthan

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.

Present appeal has been filed by Niranjan S/o. Meva Ram. He alongwith two co-accused namely Member S/o. Bhajori, and Ramkumar S/o. Kaptan Singh, during investigation of case FIR No. 226/2001 registered at Police Station, Kotwali District Dholpur for offences under Sections 302/34, 341, and 3/25 Arms Act were nominated as accused.

Trial Court declared Member S/o. Bhajori proclaimed offender as during the course of the trial, he remain absconded. So far accused Ramkumar S/o. Kaptan Singh is concerned, he was acquitted by the trial Court vide a separate judgment dated 06th January, 2004.

The trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 28th January, 2010 held appellant guilty of offence under Section 302/34 IPC for having caused murder of Prabal Pratap Singh, and vide the separate order of even date, the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 341 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment. For offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, the appellant was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment, and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo two months'' rigorous imprisonment.

All the above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written report (Ex.P/1) submitted by Ranveer Singh (P.W.1). The written report (Ex.P/1) when translated into English reads as under:--

"To

Station House Officer, Dholpur.

Subject: Registration of the case.

Sir,

In the subject mentioned above, it is submitted that I, and Prabal Pratap Singh in one motor cycle, and Narendra Goswami @ Dadu, and Vishal Singh on another scooter were going towards old city. At about 6.20 P.M. opposite the shop of Dholpur Kaji Ji, Niranjan S/o. unknown, caste Gujjar, and Member Jat S/o. unknown after raising voice stopped us, and had open attack. They had fired many shots. The shot has hit Prabal Pratap Singh. I, Narendra Goswami, and Vishal Singh made many efforts to save Prabal Pratap Singh but due to fire arm injuries received on the body, Prabal Pratap Singh died at the spot.

By lodging the report, legal action sought.

Dated 15th July, 2001.

Sign Ranveer Singh S/o. late Atar Singh B/c Gujjar, R/o Santar Road, Dholpur (Rajasthan). "

On the basis of the above, formal FIR was registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Dholpur at 6.55 P.M. The said report reached Illaqa Magistrate on 16th September, 2001 at 1.15 P.M.

Dr. Bhagwan Dass Jindal (P.W.8) stated that on 15th July, 2001, he was posted at General Hospital, Dholpur. He had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Prabal Pratap Singh at 6.45 P.M., and had submitted Post-Mortem Report (Ex.P/6). He had found following injuries on the person of deceased Prabal Pratap Singh:--

"1. A Gun shot wound of Entry:--

1 cm x 3/4 cm oval in shape margins are inverted situated over Rt. side of chest anteriorly 3 cm above from Rt. nipple. Deep to thorax cavity.

A Gun shot wound of exit:- 2.5 cm x 1 cm irregular in shape with everted margin situated over the Postr. axillary fold upper most part- on left side of chest. There abrasion in continuation with this wound size of abrasion is 8 cm x 1/2 cm on the postero Medial aspect of left arm.

Direction of wound:- from Ant. aspect to Rt. of chest inwards mid line and obliquely upward posteriorly piercing Rt. lung than Rt. artery on the heart and left lung and crossing toward post axillary fold.

B Gun shot wound of Entry - 1 cm x 1/2 cm oval in shape over the Antr. axillary fold upper most part margins are inverted Rt. side.

By Gun Shot wound of Exit:--

2 cm x 1 cm irregular in shape with everted margin over the postr axillary line Rt. side.

Both wound is in continuity and situated in between same inter costal space.

C Gun shot wound of Entry:- 1.5 cm x 1 cm oral in shape over the Rt. torn below from Right Tibial Tutucity anterior aspect.

Gun shot wound of Exit:- 3cm x 2 cm irregular in shape over the torn medially aspect 3 cm below from Rt. tibial tubercity. Directions wound is towards upward, medially with of Rt. tibia bone.

D wound and Entry gun shot:--

1 cm x 1 cm round in shape over the left leg. Lateral side 5 cm below tubal tuburcity Margins are inverted.

D1 Gun shot wound of exit:

1.5 cm x 1 cm with irregular everted margin situated over lower 1/2 of poplitial fossa on its medial aspect with of head of fibula left direction of wound is upward and medically.

Lacerated wound 1/2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep over antr aspect of Rt. shoulder Grease around the wound margin present.

Lacerated wound 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x skin deep over left side of abdomen at the level of umbilicus on its outer most lateral wall.

Gun shot wound of entry:--

1.5 cm x 1 cm oval in shape, muscle deep situated over lateral most wall of left hip 5cm below from left Iliac crust from this wound metallic elongated pellet is recovered and sealed. Recovery of pellet is done 4 cm below from iliac crust to the wound of entry."

A perusal of the injury reveals that out of seven gun shot injuries, five injuries were entry wound. As per opinion of the doctor, gun shot injuries received was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

On the same day at 10.00 P.M., the witness was also examined Shankar S/o. Niroti, and had found one firearm injury on the person.

Dr. S.K. Garg (P.W.7) on 23rd December, 2001 at General Hospital, Dholpur had examined appellant Niranjan, and had found seven injuries on a person. As per medico legal report (Ex.P/2) following injuries on the person of Niranjan, accused appellant have been noticed:--

Injury No. 6 and 7 were declared grievous. However, as per opinion of the Medical Board, the duration of the injuries was about two to three days.

The trial Court charged appellant for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. The charge stated that on 15th July, 2001, opposite the shop of Kajiji, appellant alongwith other co-accused had fired shots at Prabal Pratap Singh and, thus committed his murder. Similarly the appellant was charged for offence under Section 341 and 120B IPC. The appellant was also charged for offence under Section 308 IPC for having caused firearm injury on the ankle of Shankar.

Prosecution commenced its evidence.

Ranveer Singh first informant appeared as P.W.1. He stated in the Court that "on 15th July, 2001 at about 6.20 P.M., he went to motor cycle to meet Prabal Pratap Singh at Pratap Vihar Colony. On the way, Narendra Goswami @ Dadu, and Vishal Chauhan have also meet him. He alongwith them went to the house of Prabal Pratap Singh house. Prabal Pratap Singh stated that he has to be visited a Contractor. Then, witness, and Prabal Pratap Singh on one motor cycle, Vishal and Dadu on another scooter went towards the city. When they reached near the shop of Kaji, accused Member Jat, and the present appellant raised voice, and stopped them. The witness alighted from the motor cycle. Prabal Pratap Singh had also alighted from the motor cycle. Then Member Jat, and present appellant Niranjan Gujjar stated that today they have good opportunity to kill everybody. Then Member, from a country made pistol fired a shot at the foot of Prabal Pratap Singh. Niranjan fired a gun shot injury from the pistol, and same hit on the chest, and waist of Prabal Pratap Singh. He was soaked with blood. Both accused decamped towards the old city. The witness alongwith Narendra and Vishal Chauhan brought Prabal Pratap Singh to hospital where he was declared dead. Police arrived at the spot. He had submitted written report (Ex.P/1), on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered. Police had also prepared site plan of the spot (Ex.P/3). Police had also prepared inquest proceedings (Ex.P/4)." In the Court witness stated that "(Ex.P/1) was written by same person who was sitting in Police Station. He further stated that since the motor cycle was not owned by him, he was not aware of the number." In cross-examination this witness admitted that "in 1994 in a case instituted by one Ravindra against Prabal Pratap Singh, he may have appeared as a witness. The witness further stated that "he is not aware that he had turned hostile to the prosecution in favour of Prabal Pratap Singh."

Vishal Singh appeared as P.W.2. He also reiterated as to what was stated by Ranveer Singh (P.W.1).

Similarly, Narendra Goswami (P.W.3) also supported the prosecution case, and had deposed that "in his presence, present appellant alongwith Member had fired shot, due to which, Prabal Pratap Singh had died."

Jitendra Singh Rajoriya (P.W.2) is witness of the site plan of the place of occurrence prepared by the police.

Neeraj Agarwal (P.W.10) stated that "on 13th September, 2001, the present appellant got recovered the pistol from his house."

It is not disputed that clothes of the deceased Prabal Pratap Singh were recovered, and same was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.P/20), the same was stained with blood Group ''A'' origin to contend that the present case rests upon three eyewitnesses namely Ranveer Singh (P.w.1), Vishal Singh (P.W.2) and Narendra Goswami (P.W.3).

Shri Vijay Choudhary, appearing for the appellant has submitted that injury No. 5 was a lacerated wound 2 cm x1 cm. bone deep on the right shoulder, and injury No. 6 was a lacerated wound 1/2 cm. x 1/2 Cm. x skin deep on the right side of abdomen. Counsel further submitted that both the injuries have not been caused with firearm injury, and therefore, the prosecution has not explained as to how these injuries were suffered by the deceased. Thus, it is canvassed by Shri Chaudhary that there are contradictions between medical, and ocular version.

We do not find that injury No. 5 and 6 which have been caused with a blunt weapon, for their non-explanation will not make the case of the prosecution. It has come in evidence that after receipt of injuries, deceased had fallen. Both injury No. 5 and 6 are on the right side of body, and same can be suffered due to fall of the deceased.

Shri Choudhary, meticulously referred to statement of Vishal Singh (P.W.2) to contend that the direction of fire shots which hit the deceased from downwards to upwards. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Dr. Bhagwan Dass Jindal (P.W.8) stated that the direction of injury No. 4 is from downwards to upwards, and same can only be received if the deceased is sitting, and steadily standing. Referring to injury No. 4, it is stated that injury No. 4 is an entry wound, and its direction is also from downwards to upwards. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Narendra (P.W.3) in his statement stated that shots fired by the accused when they were standing. According to the counsel, non-explanation of the direction of firearm shots belie presence of the eyewitness.

We are not convinced with the argument as we are of the view that when injury was caused, and specially firearm was used, witnesses were never static, they move here and there. Therefore, opinion of the doctor is not sufficient to discard the ocular version that indiscriminate shots were fired, and out of seven injuries received by the deceased, five injuries were entry wound. Even an expert cannot give any accurate opinion, or opine regarding the direction of the wound with precision. The statement made by doctor in cross-examination that the direction of injuries was from upwards to downwards to disbelieve the presence of the witnesses at the scene of the occurrence.

Shri Vijay Choudhary has further stated that witnesses are highly interested. Counsel for the appellant has referred to (Ex.D/2) to state that first informant Ranveer Singh is closely associated with deceased Prabal Pratap Singh as he appeared a witnesses against Prabal Pratp Singh, and during the course of the trial had turned hostile, and had absolved Prabal Pratap Singh of offence.

To us, in the present case FIR has been promptly lodged, it contents a spontaneous version, we find nothing unnatural or improbable in the testimony of the eyewitnesses. They have explained that they have gone to the house of Prabal Pratap Singh, and had accompanied towards the old city. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that Ram Niwas (P.W.15) Investigating Officer reached at the place of incident before registration of the FIR. It is further contended that it has come in evidence that two-three persons who had gathered at the spot, had taken Prabal Pratap Singh to the hospital in rickshaw, and thus, Ranveer Singh (P.W.1), Vishal Singh (P.W.2) and Narendra Goswami (P.W.3) were not present at the time of occurrence.

This argument is also devoid of merit. Ranveer Singh (P.W.1) had submitted written report (Ex.P/1) at 6.55 P.M. to SHO, Police Station, Kotwali, Dholpur, occurrence had taken place at around 6.20 P.M. It is also case of the prosecution that Ranveer Singh had gone to lodge the report.

Thus, it cannot be said that the Ranveer Singh (P.W.1), Vishal Singh (P.W.2) and Narendra Goswami (P.W.3) were not present at the time of occurrence.

Considering totality of the circumstances, and specific role assigned to the appellant, we find no merit in the present appeal, same being devoid of merit, is dismissed.