Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mr. Tarun Mishra vs The State Of Madras on 3 June, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT Babu Shah v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No.627/2005) D.B. Criminal Appeal against the Judgment dated 2.7.2005 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Tonk in Sessions Case No.34/04. Date of Judgment: June 3rd, 2015 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA Mr. Tarun Mishra, for the accused-appellant. Mr. Aladeen Khan, Public Prosecutor for State.
(Per Ahluwalia, J.) Babu Shah S/o Shakoor Shah, Vinod Kumar S/o Nathu Nat, Kum. Vimla D/o Roopa @ Fateh Singh @ Sarupa, Kum. Sajjo D/o Roopa Mata Manbhar Nat, Surendra @ Kalu S/o Ramesh Chand, Shaitan S/o Ram Kunwar Meena were tried by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Tonk for having caused murder of one Mitthu Choudhary on the intervening night of 10.3.2004 and 11.3.2004. They were also tried for causing injuries to Ram Sahai (P.W.1). The learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 2.7.2005 held the appellant Babu Shah guilty of offences under Sections 302 and 325 IPC and co-accused Vinod Kumar as guilty of offence under Section 302/34 IPC. Remaining accused were acquitted by granting benefit of doubt. The trial Judge vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellant Babu Shah for offence under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment, pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default thereof, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Babu Shah was also sentenced for offence under Section 325 IPC to three years rigorous imprisonment, pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default thereof, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. Trial court further ordered that the appellant shall first undergo sentence under Section 325 IPC and his sentence under Section 302 IPC shall commence thereafter. Vinod Kumar co-accused was sentenced for offence under Section 302/34 IPC to life imprisonment, pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default thereof, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, Vinod Kumar had filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No.734/05.
Shri Tarun Mishra learned counsel appearing for Babu Shah has stated that Vinod Kumar died during pendency of appeal and his appeal has been disposed of having abated.
Babu Shah instituted the present D.B. Criminal Appeal No.627/2005 to assail his conviction and sentence. In the said appeal, he has also filed an application bearing No.1174 dated 2.2.2010 praying that in case the appeal is not allowed, sentences be ordered to run concurrently.
Kum. Vimla, Kum. Sajjo acquitted accused, Mala (P.W.29), Lalita (P.W.30) and Renu (P.W.32), (all three declared hostile), belong to Nat community and were engaged in prostitution. In the present case, all other eye-witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution and case of the prosecution rests only on the testimony of Ram Sahai (P.W.1) injured in the occurrence and the first informant.
Initial version given by Ram Sahai (P.W.1) in the written report (Ex.P.1) was simple and straight. It was projected that deceased Mitthu, Ram Sahai (P.W.1), Babu Shah appellant had gone to Deras of prostitutes and there in the night, Mitthu forcibly intended to outrage modesty of Vimla and Sajjo acquitted accused. Vimla at that time was pregnant, having pregnancy of six months. Appellant Babu Shah intervened and caused injuries. However, later Ram Sahai (P.W.1) in court changed his version, he denied that he alongwith deceased had taken liquor or had done something wrong which led to causing of injuries. The witness was duly confronted with his written report/statement (Ex.P.1) recorded by the investigating officer.
Thus, the test before this court is to evaluate the testimony of solitary injured eye-witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras, reported in A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 614 (V 44 C 91 Sept.), qua solitary eye-witness has observed as under:-
Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well- established rule of law that thecourt is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for, proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: -
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way-it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict,if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution.
In the light of above judgment, we shall determine whether Ram Sahai (P.W.1) is a wholly reliable witness or is to be dubbed as wholly unreliable or termed as partial reliable or partial unreliable witness. To undertake the above exercise, it is necessary for us to briefly note the facts of the case.
As per the head note of FIR (Ex.P.37), occurrence had taken place on 10.3.2004 at around 10-11 PM. Ram Sahai Keer (P.W.1) on 11.3.2004 at about 10.30 AM had presented written report (Ex.P.1) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P.37) was registered at Police Station Niwai at 11.00 AM. In his written report (Ex.P.1) presented before Rajesh (P.W.31), Ram Sahai (P.W.1) stated that on 10.3.2004 at around 5.00 PM he on a Suzuki Motorcycle of Mitthu Choudhary bearing No.7788, after purchasing two pouches of liquor, had gone to the Deras of Nats at Aliabad Mod. They set in the room of Lalita (P.W.30) and took liquor alongwith Lallu Ji Brahman (P.W.8). At around 9.00 PM Babu Shah present appellant, Vimla acquitted accused came in a Marshall vehicle and went towards the Dera of Vimla. Ram Sahai (P.W.1) and Mitthu left the room of Lalita and went to the Dera of Vimla. Present appellant Babu Fakeer asked for purchase of three pouches of liquor which were consumed by Ram Sahai (P.W.1), Mitthu deceased, Babu and Pooran Nat. At around 10-11 PM, Mitthu deceased caught hold of Vimla. Babu Bhai appellant objected to same. Kum. Sajjo another acquitted accused also protested. Mitthu deceased started to do Cherkhani (attempt to do outrage modesty) of both the girls due to which fists blows were exchanged. Ram Sahai (P.W.1) intervened to separate and then Babu caused a lathi blow on the head of Ram Sahai (P.W.1). When Mitthu intervened then Vinod Nat convicted accused who died during pendency of the appeal, and two other persons who were known to Babu and Vinod also caught hold of them. Vinod and Babu were armed with Kulhari (Axe) and ladies were armed with sticks and in order to commit murder, they caused injuries to Mitthu and Ram Sahai (P.W.1). Due to suffering of injuries, Mitthu and Ram Sahai (P.W.1) became unconscious. In the morning at 4.00 AM Ram Sahai (P.W.1) became conscious and saw Mitthu lying near him at a distance of 15-20 steps. He was having injuries on his head and feet. Ram Sahai (P.W.1) served two glasses of water to Mitthu. Thereafer taking motorcycle of Mitthu, he narrated the occurrence to his neighbour Ramesh. Then Ramesh alongwith many other persons came to the Deras of Natanies (prostitutes). Mitthu had died. Ram Sahai (P.W.1) stated that Vinod, Babu Fakeer appellant, Vimla, Sajjo acquitted accused and two other persons who are known to Vinod and Babu Fakeer, with a common intention has caused injuries to him and Mitthu on the head. Mitthu died due to the injuries caused. He further stated that when occurrence had taken place, Lalita Kabutari and Meena were also attracted at the spot and they had seen the occurrence.
From a perusal of the above written report (Ex.P.1) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P.37) was registered, it is evident that Ram Sahai (P.W.1) was injured. Occurrence was also witnessed by Lalita (P.W.30), Mala (P.W.29) and Puran Mal (P.W.26), who was taking liquor with deceased, injured witness and present appellant.
Lallu Lal Sharma with whom first as per written report (Ex.P.1), deceased and Ram Sahai (P.W.1) had taken liquor appeared as P.W.8 and stated that he was employed as a Helper in Jaipur Electricity Distribution Corporation. This witness stated that on the day of occurrence at 2.30-3.00 PM he had gone to give invitation card of marriage of his daughter, when Mitthu Choudhary and one Keer (Ram Sahai, P.W.1) came. They brought two pouches of liquor. All three took liquor and he left the spot at 4.00-4.15 PM. This witness was declared hostile.
Mala and Lalita who were named as eye-witnesses in the occurrence appeared as P.W.29 and P.W.30 respectively alongwith one Renu as P.W.32 They were examined by the prosecution as eye-witnesses. All three have turned hostile.
Mala (P.W.29) in court stated that name of her mother is Sanak. Her father had died two years ago. Lalita is her sister being cousin. They were staying at Chauth Ka Barwada. In the locality, Vimla, Sajjo, Renu were having their rooms. Mitthu Jat deceased daily used to come to their Dera. He used to take liquor and pick-up a fight. From 2.00 PM onwards he was taking liquor alongwith one Keer (Ram Sahai, P.W.1) who was also there. Both had taken the drink and had fought with each-other. They ran away from the spot.
Lalita (P.W.30) stated that she knew Vinod. He belonged to their community. Mala was staying alongwith her. In the locality, Vimla, Sajjo and Renu were also staying in the same locality. On the day of occurrence Ram Sahai (P.W.1) and deceased Mitthu came to their Dera at about 1.30 PM. They brought liquor. They took liquor and started fighting with each-other. Ram Sahai (P.W.1) caused injuries to the deceased with a Kulhari (Axe) and deceased was armed with a lathi. They started fighting with each-other. She alongwith Sajjo, Vimla and Mala ran away from the spot. Lallu (P.W.8) was also there.
Renu (P.W.32) stated that she was staying at Niwai near Chainpura Phatak. Besides her, Sajjo, Vimla, Lalita, Mala were also staying there. They were engaged in prostitution Hum Waha Par Dhandha Karte The. Hum Nat Jati Ke Hai. In the night at about 9.00 PM in their house which is called hut (Jhopadi), Mittha Lal and Ram Sahai (P.W.1) came. They were taking liquor. Mittha was armed with a lathi. Ram Sahai (P.W.1) was armed with a kulhari (Axe). They both were fighting, then they ran away from the spot.
Thus, it is evident that Mala (P.W.29) and Lalita (P.W.30) who were named as eye-witnesses in the FIR alongwith Renu (P.W.32) having admitted that the occurrence had taken place at their residence, have turned hostile to the prosecution and have taken a stand that Ram Sahai (P.W.1) had caused injuries to Mitthu deceased and Ram Sahai (P.W.1) himself had suffered injury at the hands of Mitthu deceased. Thus, these witnesses though have admitted presence of Ram Sahai and Mitthu deceased, had put the testimony of Ram Sahai (P.W.1) under cloud by saying that he himself was assailant and was responsible for the death of Mitthu deceased. In view of testimony of above witnesses, this court has to be circumspect and on guard to evaluate the testimony of Ram Sahai (P.W.1) solitary witness as the witnesses Lalita (P.W.30), Mala (P.W.29) and Renu (P.W.32) whose presence at the spot is natural have stated that Ram Sahai (P.W.1) himself is responsible for causing murder of Mitthu. We also cannot become oblivious of the fact that two of the acquitted accused Vimla and Sajjo, and convicted accused Vinod belong to the Nat community, to which three lady eye-witnesses belong.
Ram Sahai (P.W.1) received injuries in the occurrence. He was examined on 11.3.2004 at about 3.40 PM by Dr. D.C. Jonwal (P.W.9). As per injury report (Ex.P.8), following injuries were found on the person of Ram Sahai (P.W.1):-
1. Stitched wound 2 long having 6 stitches. On pressure blood came out on Rt. parietal region of scalp posteriorly.
2. Abrasion 1x1/2 on left side forehead laterally.
3. Abrasion 1 x 3/4 on left maxilla of face.
4. Abrasion 3/4 x 1/4 on left side of face near mandible.
5. Contusion 3 x 1 on Rt. of iliac crest near seen iliac joint.
6. Abrasion 1 x 1/4 on above injury No.5.
7. Abrasion 1/4 x 1/6 on back below injury No.6.
Note: All abrasions have no scab formation.
Dr. D.C. Jonwal (P.W.9) alongwith Dr. Hamid Hussain (P.W.21) being Members of the Medical Board had also conducted autopsy on the person of Mitthu Lal and had found 18 injuries on his person as per post-mortem report (Ex.P.29). According to opinion of the Board, cause of death was coma due to injuries No.6 and 7 caused on the head. We need not notice injuries on the person of deceased as admittedly Mitthu Lal died due to injuries caused and no argument qua the medical evidence has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
Suffice it to say, injuries No.5, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 18 were abrasions and all injuries were caused by sharp and blunt weapon.
Prosecution in all had examined 32 witnesses. We need not notice the testimony of the witnesses who had attested the inquest or who had attested the memos regarding recoveries or had participated in investigation leading to registration of the case, attestation of arrest memos, taking sealed articles to the FSL or examined to prove the link evidence.
As stated earlier, the case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of Ram Sahai (P.W.1) who after other witnesses were declared hostile, is the only witness who has deposed against the accused including the present appellant.
Ram Sahai (P.W.1) appearing in the court stated that on 10.3.2004 at about 5-6 PM he alongwith Mitthu had gone to Aliabad Mod to the Deras of Nats. They went on the motorcycle of Mitthu bearing No.7788. They went on Dera of Lalita Natani (P.W.30). At that time, Lallu Lal Brahman (P.W.8) was also present. He, Mitthu, Lallu and Lalita were talking. At about 8.00 PM Vimla and Babu came in a Marshall vehicle. Vimla called them. He and Mitthu went to the house of Vimla Natani. At about 10.00 PM Vinod, Babu and two other persons namely Kalu and Shaitan alongwith Sajjo Natani came. On coming, all five said to them as to why they are sitting there. Then Babu Sai, Vinod, Shaitan and Kalu all four armed with Kulharis (Axe) caused injuries to Mitthu. All four male accused were armed with kulhari (Axe). Vimla and Sajjo were armed with lathis. Babu Bhai caused kulhari (Axe) injury on the head of Mitthu. Shaitan also caused injury on the face of Mitthu. Kalu caused injury on the shoulder of Mitthu. Vinod caused injury with kulhari (Axe) on the feet of Mitthu. Mitthu fell on the spot. When he rushed to rescue him, Babu Shah caused injury with kulhari (Axe) on his head. Vinod also caused kulhari (Axe) injury. The witness was duly confronted with his report (Ex.P.1). The witness totally disowned the version given in Exhibit-P.1 and gave following explanation:-
??????? ??-1 ??????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?????... ??? ? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????... ??????? ??????? ??-1 ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? "???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??, ??? ????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??-1 ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ?-1 ??? ????? ???? ???? ??, ??? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ??-1 ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ????, ???? ???? ?????? ? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???"
From a perusal of the statement of Ram Sahai (P.W.1) made in the written report (Ex.P.1), it is evident that while appearing as witness he has omitted that he alongwith Mitthu deceased had taken liquor at the Dera of Lalita (P.W.30). Lallu Lal (P.W.8) had admitted that in the afternoon, he alongwith Mitthu and Ram Sahai (P.W.1) had taken liquor. To us, Ram Sahai (P.W.1) has made material departure from the written report (Ex.P.1) intentionally and purporsely to absolve himself and Mitthu Lal of their own unbecoming conduct at Dera of Vimla Natani. Thus, we evaluate Ram Sahai (P.W.1) solitary eye-witness to be partially relied and partially unreliable witness. To us, version given in the written report (Ex.P.1) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.P.37) was registered contains spontaneous version which is free from the blemish of improvements made by the witness in the court. Ram Sahai (P.W.1) solitary witness has been duly confronted with the written report (Ex.P.1) submitted by him before the investigating officer. Investigating Officer Rajesh (P.W.31) in court stated that portion 'A' to 'B', 'C' to 'D', 'E' to 'F', 'G' to 'H', 'I' to 'J' in the statement (Ex.D.1) of Ram Sahai (P.W.1) were correctly recorded by him. Thus, the accused has succeeded by way of confrontation to prove on record, earliest and spontaneous version given by the solitary witness. A perusal of the version which has been proved by confrontation contain averment that Mitthu deceased had caught hold of hand of Vimla and he started to outrage her modesty (Chhedkhani Karne Lage). It has also come in evidence that present appellant had objected to the conduct of Mitthu. It has also come in confronted portion that Mitthu deceased and Ram Sahai (P.W.1) had almost consumed five pouches of liquor alongwith Lallu (P.W.8) and Babu Shah present appellant. It has also come in confronted portion that when the present appellant objected, exchange of fist blows started and pushes were also given.
Thus, from the case of prosecution it is evident that to save the woman from a person who was bent upon to outrage her modestly, the appellant Babu Shah alongwith others had caused injuries. Section 97 IPC which extends right of private defence of body and property reads as under:-
97. Right of private defence of the body and of property.- Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend-
First.- His own body, and the body of any other person, (emphasis supplied) against any offence affecting the human body; .......
Clause-First of Section 97 specifically states that right of self defence is not only extended qua own body, but also qua body of any other person against whom any offence affecting the human body is committed.
Mitthu who died later was under the influence of liquor, he attempted to outrage the modesty of Vimla Natani acquitted accused against her wishes. He also made similar attempt qua Sajjo another acquitted accused. It is well settled that even, if in a Bazar some hooligan make an attempt to outrage modesty of a woman even a passer-by to save the woman of her modesty can avail right of self defence of that woman. In the present case, Vimla and Sajjo have been tried alongwith the appellant. As stated earlier, in written report (Ex.P.1) it has been specifically stated that Mitthu had caught hold of hands of Vimla and he was doing Chhedkhani with both Vimla and Sajjo which has resulted into giving of pushes and fist blows. Therefore, to save Vimla and Sajjo, appellant was entitled to cause injuries. In the present case, there are 18 injuries on the person of deceased. As per witness Ram Sahai (P.W.1), injuries were caused by six persons out of whom four persons have been acquitted, one has died during pendency of appeal filed by him. To us, it seems that the appellant had exceeded the right of self defence and his case will fall under Exception-2 to Section 300 IPC. Occurrence had ensued without any premediation, on the spur of moment when deceased under the influence of liquor caught hold of the hand of woman accused. Thus, in our view, the appellant has not committed any offence under Section 302 IPC, but under Section 304 Pt.I IPC.
Consequently, we convert the conviction of the appellant Babu Shah from offence under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Pt.I IPC. We also modify and reduce the sentence of life imprisonment awarded upon the appellant under Section 302 IPC to ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Pt.I IPC. We also impose fine of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant and order that in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment. However, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence under Section 325 IPC awarded by the trial court, is maintained.
We also accept the application (No.1174 dated 2.2.2010) filed by the appellant and order that sentence awarded under Section 325 IPC by the trial court shall run concurrently alongwith the sentence awarded by us under Section 304 Pt.I IPC.
With the above modification qua conviction and sentence, the present appeal stands partly accepted.
(NISHA GUPTA)J. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J. Govind/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Govind Sharma, Sr.PA