Raj Pal vs State of Haryana

Harphul Singh Brar, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment dated 20.1.1994 and order dated 21.1.1994 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar vide which he had convicted the present appellant Raj Pal under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further R.I. for one year.

The prosecution story unfolded by Babu Lal (PW5) when he lodged the First Information Report in the police station is that he was the resident of Bawani Khera and did labour. He and Shamsher son of Raghbir Singh and Bhup Singh son of Ram Kishan, Balmikis by caste, resident of Bawani Khera, did the work of digging pits for everclean latrines and their covers relating to Satpal, contractor, resident of Kurukshetra under the supervision of Suresh son of Tek Ram Jat, resident of Narnaud for the last about 4/5 months. All the three resided in the house of Suresh. Raj Pal son of Kishan Lal, Balmiki used to do work with Krishan contractor in the past but he had started working with them for the last about 4/5 days. He was residing separately. On 17.8.1992 at about 12.30 p.m., at the time of rest, Shamsher asked Rajpal that his progress was less and either he should do more work otherwise they would not keep him with them. On this Rajpal lost temper and abused Shamsher saying that he himself could do the same and he (Shamsher) could not harm him in any way and he (Rajpal) would see him. After saying so, Shamsher gave two/three slaps to Rajpal in his presence and that of Bhup Singh son of Ram Kishan. At this, Rajpal lost temper and went away saying that he would see him during the night.

On 17.8.1992 at about 8/9 p.m., he (Babu Lal) and Bhup Singh slept on the roof after taking meals and Shamsher Singh slept on his cot on the lower portion. At about 1130 p.m., noise was heard from the lower portion all of a sudden. Thereupon, he and Bhup Singh got up all of a sudden and saw Rajpal son of Kishan Lal Balmiki, resident of Bawani Khera armed with a knife, was standing near the cot towards the head of Rajpal. The electric bulb was burning in the courtyard of the house at that time. The blood was oozing out of the neck of Shamsher Singh. While coming down from the roof, both of them told Rajpal that he committed atrocity. On hearing their noise, Rajpal fled away towards the gate. Thereupon he (Babu Lal) and Bhup Singh came downstairs and noticed that blood was oozing out of the neck of Shamsher Singh due to infliction of injury and Shamsher Singh had died. After leaving Bhup Singh near the deadbody of Shamsher Singh, he had gone to the house of Shamsher Singh at Bawani Khera in order to inform about the occurrence and after giving information, he had come straight to the police station from Bawani Khera to lodge a report. Rajpal son of Kishan Lal, Balmiki resident of Bawani Khera had murdered Shamsher Singh son of Raghbir Singh, resident of Bawani Khera, by giving knife blow on his neck. Action may be taken against him in accordance with law.

Babu Lal''s statement was recorded by Angrej Singh, S.I./S.H.O., P.S. Narnaund which was read and explained to him and he signed it as a token of its correctness. The case under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered against the appellant Rajpal. The S.H.O. along with other police officials, proceeded to the spot for investigation and copies of the F.I.R. and the Special Report were sent to the higher officers and the Illaqa Magistrate. Special Report reached the Illaqa Magistrate on 18.10.1992 at 1.35 p.m. through constable Om Pal.

The accused was apprehended at Bawani Khera booth (BusStand, Hansi) in the presence of (PW7) Naresh and Teka Ram. The accused, on interrogation, made a disclosure statement with regard to the place of concealment of weapon of offence and thereafter he led the police party to the place indicated in the disclosure statement and got the recovery of knife Ex.P.9 effected.

Ultimately, the accused was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 I.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, as stated above.

The prosecution has produced as many as 9 witnesses. P.W.1 Dr. K.L. Jaggal has conducted the postmortem on the deadbody of the deceased and he found the following injury on his person :

"There was an incised would 2.5 x 1 cm. on the front and lateral aspect of right side of neck, 3 cm. over the right sternoclavicular joint. Clotted blood was present. Margins were even and smooth. The lateral angle of the wound was sharp and medial angle was rough. On dissection, sterno mastoid muscle was cut and clotted blood was present in the wound. Common carotid artery was also cut and underlying structures at the site were also cut, but traches was intact."

Dr. Jaggal had opined that the cause of death, in his opinion, was excessive haemorrhage as a result of injury as described above which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and was antemortem in nature. Dr. Jaggal also opined that the injury found on the person of the deceased could have been sustained on 17.8.1992 at 1130 p.m.

P.W.2 Suresh Kumar had photographed the spot vide photographs Ex.PE/1 and PE/3, Ex.PE/4 to Ex.PE/6 being their negatives. P.W. 3 Ram Sarup Patwari, Halqa Narnaund had prepared scaled site plan (of the site of occurrence). Ex.PF on the pointing of Gopi Ram and Bhup Singh PWs.

P.W. 4 S.I. Chander Bhan had collected sealed parcel containing knife from the M.H.C. and had obtained opinion Ex.PD/1 of Dr. Juggal in respect thereof and had resealed the knife and deposited it with the M.H.C.

P.W. 5 Babu Lal and P.W. 6 Bhup Singh are the persons who had witnessed the altercation between Shamsher Singh deceased and the deceased earlier to the occurrence. They also spotted the accused standing by the cot of the deceased with a bloodstained knife in his hands. They had also seen the accused, fleeing from the spot towards the gate as soon he saw them coming downstairs.

P.W. 7 Naresh is the real brother of the deceased, who came to the spot when he was informed about the murder of his real brother Shamsher Singh deceased.

P.W. 8 Kishan Lal is the person in whose employment the accused previously was. P.W. 9 S.I. Angrej Singh had investigated the case.

Affidavits Exhibits PG, PH, PI, PK and PL of Constable Anil Kumar, H.C. Sat Narain, Constable Sumer Singh, Constable Om Pal and H.C. Manohar Lal, respectively, were tendered into evidence. Exhibits PJ and PJ/1 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner.

The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. alleged that the was innocent and he had been roped in falsely due to personal enmity and he found later on that there was an altercation between the deceased Shamsher Singh, Babu Lal (PW5) and Bhup Singh (PW6) interse after they consumed liquor on the relevant night and in the course of that altercation, Shamsher Singh deceased fell upon a Kassi and sustained the injury which resulted in his death. As per practice, they used to retain their Kassi etc. in that very room. He further stated that Shamsher Singh deceased was a man of bad character as he had relations with some other women. He had also enmity with many persons. However, the accused did not adduce any defence evidence.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there is delay of 11 hours in loading the First Information Report and the medical evidence belies the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses, inasmuch as Dr. Jaggal (PW1) had found that the stomach of the deceased was full of undigested food particles. Of course, there is a delay of about 11 hours in lodging the F.I.R., but it has been duly explained by the prosecution. Babu Lal who happens to be the cousin of the deceased, had deposed at the trial that he had left Bhup Singh (PW6) at the spot and had gone to the house of Shamsher Singh (deceased) in village Bawani Khera to inform about his death. He had left Narnaund for Bawani Khera at about 11.00 (night) as no means of conveyance was available and he had gone to Bawani Khera on foot. He had reached there at about 6.30/7.30 a.m. He intimated the occurrence to Naresh, real brother of the deceased and they rode a bus from Bawani Khera to Narnaund which is at a distance of about 4041 kms from Bawani Khera, to lodge the First Information Report. After reaching Narnaund, Naresh had left for the place of occurrence while he left for the police station to give information to the police. He reached the policestation at about 1030 a.m. Though on the face of it, it looks abnormal that instead of informing the police, Babu Lal will go to the village Bawani Khera to inform about the death of the deceased Shamsher Singh, to his brother, but such a thing can be expected from a rustic illiterate labourer who happens to be the cousin of the deceased. He might have thought of informing the brother of the deceased first, than to inform the police. Thus, he had left Bawani Khera on foot when he did not find any conveyance to reach there because it was nighttime. Moreover, each and every human being would react differently in a given situation and he chose to inform the brother of the deceased first, than to go to the policestation. If it is so, then the delay in lodging the First Information Report is fully explained.

As per prosecution version, the deceased had consumed food at 900 p.m. The occurrence had taken place at about 1100 or 1130 p.m. Finding of undigested food particles in the stomach of the deceased does not belie the ocular evidence. First of all, it was described that the deceased had consumed food at about 900 p.m. It could be 1 and 11/2 hours later also as the labourers did not have watch with them and the time stated by them at about 900 p.m. or so is only approximate. In any case, the finding of undigested food particles in the stomach of the deceased does not belie the ocular testimony of the PWs. The state of the contents of the stomach found at the time of medical examination is not a safe guide for determining the time of occurrence because that would be the matter of speculation in the absence of reliable evidence on the question as to when the deceased had his meal and what that meal consisted of. The time required for digestion may depend upon the nature of food and digestion varies on the state of gastric mucosa and it depends upon the health of a person at that particular time.

Babu Lal (P.W. 5) and Bhup Singh (P.W. 6) have stated in categorical terms at the trial that they got up on hearing some sound at about 11/1130 p.m. and when they looked downwards, they found the accused standing by the cot of the deceased and that the accused was carrying a bloodstained knife at that time. It has also come in their statements that while coming downwards, they declared that the accused had committed a sin. They further stated that the accused fled towards the gate when he saw them coming downstairs and then it was stated by them that when they reached near the cot of the deceased, they had found bleeding injury on the right side of the neck of the deceased. He was dead by the time they went near him. They were put to a fairly lengthy crossexamination, but their credibility could not be shaken or impeached in any way.

P.W. 5 Babu Lal and P.W. 6 Bhup Singh had seen the incident in the case in hand. They had seen the accused carrying a bloodstained knife near the cot of the deceased with bleeding wound on his neck. It is proved from their statements that the accused fled from the spot on seeing them coming down stairs. The act of fleeing by the accused lends credence to the prosecution story that it was the accused who had inflicted the knifeinjury to the deceased due to which he died. Apart from this, there is another corroborative evidence to prove the crime. The accused made a disclosure statement with regard to the weapon of offence and thereafter led the police party to the aforesaid place and got the recovery of knife Ex.P.1 effected.

We, thus, find sufficient corroboration of the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses in holding that the accused had murdered the deceased by inflicting knife blow on his body. It was found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature by the doctor and which injury was, in fact, that cause of death of the deceased, in the opinion of the doctor.

In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment/order dated 20.1.1994/21.1.1994 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar and hereby affirm the same. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed.