Satyanarayan S/o Laxminarayan vs State of M.P.

This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 08/01/2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in S.T. No.193/2013, whereby the appellant has been held guilt under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short '' IPC '') for committing murder of his father Laxminarayan and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation. He has further been found guilty under Section 323 of IPC for causing simple hurt to her daughter Rajani (P.W.11) and has been sentenced to one month''s R.I.

The prosecution story, as emerged during trial, briefly stated, is as under :

Deceased Laxminarayan, resident of village - Fundia, Police Station - Khujner, Distt. Rajgarh had three sons namely, Satyanarayan (appellant), Bhanwar Singh (P.W.8) and Nand Kishore (P.W.9). The appellant alongwith his wife Sheelabai (P.W.10), daughter Rajani (P.W.11) and younger son Brajesh was residing with his father Satyanarayan while his two brothers were residing separately in the same locality. Appellant Satyanarayan was suspicious of her wife Sheelabai (P.W.10) having illicit relations with his father Laxminarayan. On 22.04.2013 around 10 p.m., the appellant after consuming liquor started quarrelling with Sheelabai (P.W.10). He complained to her that his father Laxminarayan instead of being father is his enemy as he has taken, his wife as a result of which she keeps on quarreling with him. As per prosecution, during this quarrel, when appellant''s daughter Rajani (P.W.11) tried to intervene, the appellant assaulted her by nails. He further put Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) inside the room of the house and bolted the door of the room from the outside and thereafter, repeatedly assaulted his father Laxminarayan, who was sleeping in the courtyard of the house, by a iron ''Danta'' (a semi-inverted iron blade fixed at the lower part of the plough). As per prosecution, Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) witnessed the incident from the slit of the door. Allegedly, the appellant thereafter opened the door of their room and then fled away from the spot. Bhanwar Singh (P.W.8), who was sleeping outside the house on a nearby Otala (platform) reached there on hearing the cries raised by Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11). He

saw the appellant running away from the main door of the house and was also pushed away by the appellant. In the meantime, Nand Kishore (P.W.9), Anil Kumar (P.W.2), Manohar (P.W.3), Durga Prasad (P.W.4), all residents of the same village, also reached the spot to whom Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) narrated the incident. All of them found Laxminarayan lying in his bed in an unconscious state in a pool of blood having injuries over his head and other parts of the body. He was immediately taken by Bhanwarsingh (P.W.8) and Nand Kishore (P.W.9) to government hospital, Khujner situated at a distance of four kilometers from village Phundiya, where on examination, he was declared dead by the concerned doctors. In the meantime, Ram Nath Singh (P.W.15), the then Sub-Inspector, Police Station - Khujner, also reached the hospital and recorded ''Dehati Nalishi'' (Ex.P/9) and ''Merg'' report (Ex.P/10) at the instance of Bhanwarsingh (P.W.8). He also conducted inquest over the dead body and, vide inquest report (Ex.P/3) found that Laxminarayan died because of his head injuries. The dead body of deceased Laxminarayan was sent for postmortem examination. Same day at around 9.00 a.m. Dr. M.S. Gosar (P.W.12) conducted autopsy on the dead body. He, vide postmortem report Ex.P/13 found following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased :

* Lacerated wound over the forehead near the eyebrow (left side), size 1 1/2" x 1/2" x bony deep. * Lacerated wound over the forehead 1" above 1" above the (I) wound, size 1 1/2" x 1/2" x bony deep.

* Lacerated wound over the skull in frontal bone region, size 1 1/2" x 1/2" x bony deep. * Lacerated wound over the skull in frontal bone region, size 2 1/2" 1/2" x bony deep. * Lacerated wound over the skull coupled with fracture of parietal occipital bone joint size 4" x 1/2" x bony deep. * Lacerated wound over occipital region the skull of back side, coupled with depressed fracture of skull bone. Brain matter had come out at the fracture side of skull. Size 3" x 1/2" x bony deep. * Contusion over the right shoulder. Size 2" x 1/2". * Abrasion 1" x 1/2" x skin deep over the left shoulder. * Fracture radius ulna bone right upper limb. On internal examination fracture of occipital bone was found with brain matter coming out of the same. Brain membrane was found congested. As per Dr. M.S. Gosar (P.W.12), Laxminarayan died due to injuries caused to vital organ brain and resultant excessive haemorhhage and shock. It was further opined that the death was homicidal in nature and occurred within 12 hours of the autopsy. Same day, Dr. M.S. Gosar (P.W.12) also examined Rajani (P.W.10) and as per report Ex.P/14 found following two injuries on her body. a) Abrasion 1/4" x 1/4" skin deep over right forearm. b) Abrasion 1 1/4" x 1/4" skin deep over left elbow.

As opined by Dr. Gosar (P.W.12) both the aforesaid injuries were caused by hard and sharp object within 12 hours of examination and were simple in nature.

First Information Report Ex.P/16 was registered against the appellant on the basis of Dehati Nalishi Ex.P/9. Investigation was set in motion. Sub-Inspector Ram Nath Singh (P.W.15) visited the place of occurrence and prepared site map Ex.P/11. Simple and bloodstained pieces of stony floor were also seized by him from the spot, vide seizure memo (Ex.P/5). Same day, vide arrest memo (Ex.P/1), the appellant was arrested around 7 a.m. from a nearby village Grondi. On the basis of disclosure statement made by the appellant, vide memo (Ex.P/4), same day at around 8.15 a.m. an iron blade having stains of blood over it was recovered at the instance of the appellant from his house. Apart this, ''Banyan'' and ''Pyazama'' worn by him having blood like stains were also seized and sealed, vide seizure memo (Ex.P/6) from him. The bloodstained clothes worn by the deceased received from hospital in a sealed cover were also seized, vide seizure memo (Ex.P/8). The witnesses were interrogated. The seized articles including iron blade, ''Banyan'' and ''Pyazama'' said to have been recovered from the appellant were sent, vide memo Ex.P/17 to the Regional Forensic Laboratory, Gwalior for forensic examination. The Assistant Chemical Examiner, vide report Ex.P/18 found presence of human blood on all the articles except simple pieces of stony floor ( Article-B ).

After usual investigation, a charge-sheet against the appellant was laid before the Court of Competent Magistrate, who in due course, committed the appellant to the Court of Sessions. Charges under Section 302 and 323 of IPC were framed by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant who denied the same and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution in order to bring home guilt examined as many as 15 witnesses during trial including Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11), who are said to be the eye-witnesses. Dr. M.S. Gosar (P.W.12) is the autopsy surgeon while Sub-Inspector Ram Nath Singh (P.W.15) had conducted the investigation. Documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/18 were also marked in evidence. The appellant choose not to adduce any oral or documentary evidence, however, Ex.D/ and Ex.D/2 respectively, the police statement of Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) were marked as exhibits.

The incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the appellant were put him in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant either denied the circumstances or pleaded innocence except for his arrest by police. Pleading unsound state of mind he stated that the witnesses have deposed against him on account of past enmity and that his brothers and wife have falsely implicated him so as to get rid of him.

As stated herein above, the learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence, vide the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 302 & 323 of IPC.

In this appeal preferred through Superintendent of Jail, under Section 383 of Cr.P.C. the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the finding of conviction primarily on the following grounds:

a) The learned trial Court manifestly erred in placing implicit reliance on the testimony of Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) which suffered from material omissions and contradictions. b) The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the investigation sufferred from serious lapses. c) The trial Court miserably failed to appreciate that the appellant, as per Sheelabai (P.W.10) was a person of unsound mind (''Pagal''), hence he was not liable to be convicted. d) The trial Court further seriously missed in not considering that at the time of alleged occurrence the appellant, as per prosecution, was in an inebriated condition i.e. under influence of liquor and, therefore, unable to understand the nature and consequences of his act.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the evidence on record clearly established that the appellant committed murder of his father Laxminarayan. It is urged that the testimony of Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) inspired confidence, therefore, the learned trial Court was very much justified in placing implicit reliance on the same. It is further submitted that the forensic evidence in the shape of presence of blood over ''Danta'' used by the appellant in the commission of murder and the clothes - (''Banyan'' and ''Pyazama'') worn by the appellant at the time of the incident further lends corroboration to the testimony of Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11). Lastly, it is submitted that though the appellant has pleaded false implication, however, nothing could be brought on record to establish that Rajani (P.W.11), the daughter of the appellant had any motive to falsely implicate him. Accordingly, he urged for dismissal of the appeal.

We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made at the Bar. We have also carefully perused the record. The question arises whether the finding of conviction recorded against the appellant for offences under Section 302 & 323 of IPC is sustainable in law and facts of the case ?

The learned trial Court on the basis of testimony of Dr. M.S. Gosar (P.W.12), who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and the autopsy report (Ex.P/13) prepared by him in this regard, has held that the death of Laxminarayan was homicidal in nature. From the autopsy report Ex.P/13, it is clear that as many as six lacerated wounds were found over skull of the deceased. Apart this, there was a depressed fracture in the skull bone and the brain matter had come out of the skull. Dr. Gosar (P.W.12) has denied the suggestion that the injuries found on the person of the deceased could have been caused due to tumbling down of the deceased. Indeed, no specific defence was raised on behalf of the appellant that the deceased fell down or tumble down on the ground and thereby sustained injuries on head under the parts of the body. In such premises, there is no reason to discard the opinion given by Dr. M.S. Gosar (P.W.12), that Laxminarayan died because of injuries on head - a vital part of the body and consequent haemorrhage and shock and that the death was homicidal in nature. Accordingly, we concur with the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court in this regard.

In the aforesaid premises, the next question obviously would be whether the aforesaid injuries were caused by the appellant? In this regard, the testimony of Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) respectively, the wife and daughter of the deceased, is clinching because both are said to be the eye-witnesses of the incident. The occurrence allegedly, took place in the courtyard of the appellant''s house, where the deceased was sleeping at the relevant time. The testimony of Sub-Inspector Ram Nath Singh (P.W.15), who visited the place of occurrence on the very next day of the incident is relevant in this regard. As per Ram Nath Singh (P.W.15) he prepared spot map (Ex.P/11) and also seized plain and simple slab stone from inside the house of the deceased. The slab stones so seized was sent for forensic examination. The forensic expert, vide his report Ex.P/18 had opined about presence of human blood on the slab stone ( Article-A ) which

indicates that the incident occurred inside the courtyard of the house of the deceased.

As the incident is said to have occurred at around 11 p.m., hence, presence of Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11), who were residing in the same house along with the deeased and the appellant cannot be treated as unnatural, particularly, in the absence of any defence plea that they were not present on the spot at the time of alleged incident.

Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) have clearly deposed about complicity of the appellant in assaulting the deceased with iron blade (''Danta'') and thereby causing multiple injuries to him. As per Sheelabai (P.W.10) the appellant after beating her and her daughter Rajani (P.W.11) had put both of them inside room and bolted the same from the outside and thereafter, assaulted her father-in-law by iron blade (''Danta'') which was witnessed by her from the slit of the door. As per Sheelabai (P.W.10) the appellant after assaulting the deceased had opened the door of their room and fled away from the spot. Rajani (P.W.11) has also deposed in a identical manner. Both these witnesses had been subjected to elaborate cross-examination. No material infirmity, omission or contradiction has emerged in the testimony of Rajani (P.W.11) except two omissions of trifling nature. Firstly, on the point that the appellant raised the volume of the TV which is missing in her police statement Ex.D/1 and secondly, that the appellant opened the door of the room and thereafter, fled away from the spot. Obviously, these two omissions are about the peripheral details regarding incident and not about

substantive facts. The law is well settled that if a ring of truth is there in the testimony of witness, then the same cannot be thrown away on account of minor omissions and contradictions about inconsequential details. In this regard, reference can be made to the observations of the apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC Page 1998, which are as under:

" In Abdul Gani v. State of Madya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 31 Mahajan, J., speaking for this Court deprecated the tendency of courts to take an easy course of holding the evidence discrepant and discarding the whole case as untrue. The learned Judge said that the Court should make an effort to disengage the truth from falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff. ...It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform.''''

It is not the plea of the defence that the appellant was not present in the house at the time of alleged occurrence and that the death of his father Laxminarayan occurred in some different manner. Being the son of the deceased, residing with him in the same house, the appellant was also

supposed to know about the manner in which Laxminarayan was put to death. He has maintained candid silence in this regard which somehow indirectly lands credence to the version put forth by Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11).

It has come in the prosecution story that Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) while inside the room witnessed the occurrence from the slit of the door. Both these witnesses have clearly deposed that they saw the appellant assaulting the deceased. Sheelabai (P.W.10) has denied the suggestion that there was no slit in the door of the room. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the investigating officer has not noted in spot map (Ex.P/5) about existence of any slit in the door of the room through which Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) allegedly, had peeped outside. The absence of such marking in spot map (Ex.P/11), which can well be attributed to the lapse on the part of the investigation, cannot be made a ground to discard or disbelieve the testimony of Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11), who happen to be quite natural witness and have withstood the test of cross- examination.

As per prosecution, the appellant entertained suspicion about illicit relationship between Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Laxminarayan (deceased), something stated during cross- examination by Bhanwar Singh (P.W.8), the brother of the appellant. However, while such a suspicion can be a motive on the part of the appellant to cause death of Laxminarayan, the same cannot by any stretch of logic be considered as a reason due to which Sheelabai (P.W.10) will falsely implicate

the appellant, that too at the cost of screening away the real culprit. Despite the fact that Sheelabai (P.W.10) was not happy with the appellant as he used to quarrel with her, as deposed by Bhanwar Singh (P.W.8) in para-7 and Rajani (P.W.11) in para-4; it cannot be gainsaid that Sheelabai (P.W.10) for this reason will falsely rope in her husband in connection with death of her father-in-law and thus will help in screening away the real culprit.

Thus, on careful analysis of the testimony of Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11), we are convinced that they are witnesses of truth as their presence on the spot was quite natural and their testimony does not suffer from any material omission, contradiction or infirmity. Hence, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any error in placing implicit reliance on the testimony of these two witnesses which unmistakably indicates towards complicity of the appellant in causing death of his father.

The appellant has not disputed that he was arrested by police on the very next day i.e. 23.04.2013. Ramanath Singh (P.W.15), who effected arrest, vide arrest memo (Ex.P/1) has deposed that after arrest the appellant on being interrogated disclosed that he has concealed the ''Danta'' inside his house and that on the basis of this information, recorded vide memo Ex.P/27, an iron blade alongwith clothes worn by the appellant was seized, vide seizure memo (Ex.P/6). He has further deposed that these articles were sent to State Forensic Laboratory along with other articles including clothes of the deceased and that on all these articles

presence of human blood was found, vide report (Ex.P/18). The evidence in this regard which has remained unchallenged lends corroboration to the testimony of Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11).

A faint plea regarding unsound state of mind of the appellant has been raised on behalf of the appellant, however, the same having no legs to stand deserve rejection because Bhanwar Singh (P.W.8) in para-6 of cross-examination has denied that the accused was unsound mind. Identical suggestion has also been denied by Nand Kishore (P.W.9) in para-6 of his examination. Though Sheelabai (P.W.10) has casually stated in para-4 that the appellant is a lunatic (''Pagal''), however, such casual statement cannot be made the basis to hold that the appellant at the time of incident was suffering from insanity or unsoundness of mind of the nature rendering him incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of his act. Here it can be noticed that Rajani (P.W.11) has also denied the suggestion that his father is a lunatic. Thus, the plea of insanity cannot be accepted.

Plea has also been raised on behalf of the appellant that at the time of alleged incident, he, being in a state of intoxication, was not in a position to understand the nature and consequences of his act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mirza Ghani Baig vs. State of A.P., Crime 1997, Para-II, Page-19, wherein reference has been made to Section 86 of IPC as well as the decision of the apex Court on that point in Basdev vs.

State, AIR 1956 SC 488, the relevant part whereof which has been referred in the report runs as under:-

"It is no doubt true that while the first part of the Section speaks of intent or knowledge, the latter part deals only with knowledge and a certain element of doubt in interpretation may possibly be felt by reason of this omission." So far as knowledge is concerned the Court must attribute to the intoxicated man the same knowledge as if he was quite sober. But so far as intent or intention is concerned, the Court must gather it from the attending general circumstances of the case paying due regard to the degree of intoxication..." 22. In the instant case, the appellant has not come out with a specific defence that at the time of alleged incident he was in such a state of intoxication that he could not comprehend the nature and consequences of his act. Therefore, neither Section 85 nor 86 of the IPC can be pressed into service. Apart that, it has come in the evidence that the appellant gave a beating to Sheelabai (P.W.10) and Rajani (P.W.11) and after putting them inside a room assaulted his father Laxminarayan by iron blade. This conduct on the part of the appellant speaks volumes about the fact that he was fully aware about the acts and consequences thereof.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant caused death of his father by repeatedly assaulting him on his head, a vital part of the body and thereby causing multiple

fatal injuries. It is further well established that the appellant either had the intention to cause death of his father Laxminarayan or intention to cause such bodily injury which in the ordinary course of the nature are sufficient to cause death, therefore, the act of the appellant stands covered by Section 300, Clause firstly or secondly. Further, there is nothing to indicate that his act is covered by any of the exceptions given in Section 300 of the IPC, therefore, the same falls within the category of murder punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, we concur with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of his father Laxminarayan.

In the light of the aforesaid, discussion and analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has not committed any factual or legal error in arriving at a conclusion regarding quilt of the accused with regard to charge under Section 302 and 323 of IPC. Accordingly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.