Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prabhu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 April, 2014
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.138/2007
1/13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR.
***
JUDGMENT
PRABHU RAM V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN
D.B.Criminal Appeal No.138/2007
under section 374 CR.PC against the
judgment dated 07.02.2007 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast
Track), Sirohi in sessions Case
No.27/2005 (old 13/2005).
***
DATE OF ORDER 22.04.2014
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR,J
HON'BLE MR. ATUL KUMAR JAIN ,J
Mr.Abdul Aziz Khan for the appellant
Mr.J.P.Bhardwaj, Public Prosecutor for the State
BY THE COURT (Per Hon'ble Mr.Jain,J.):
1. After investigation of FIR No.15/2005 registered at Police Station Abu Road Sadar District Sirohi under section 302 IPC, the Police filed a charge sheet against the accused-appellant Prabhu Ram under section 302 IPC and after the trial, sessions case No.27/2005 (old 13/2005) was decided on 07.02.2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi, Camp at Abu Road, and the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under section D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.138/2007 2/13 302 of IPC with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed further to undergo one year's additional imprisonment.
2. The accused-appellant was arrested in this case on 12.01.2005 and since then he is in custody.
3. The Jail Appeal was filed on behalf of the accused- appellant Prabhu Ram and Mr.Abdul Ajij Khan, Advocate was appointed as an Amicus Curiae to represent the case on behalf of the accused-appellant.
4. The accused-appellant has allegedly brutally killed his own mother Mst Dhapu Devi. An FIR against him was lodged by his younger brother Chunni Lal. In the FIR, it was mentioned that in the night at 11:00 PM, when he was sleeping in his "Guwadi" then in the neighbouring portion of the "Guwadi", he heard cries of his mother. He rushed to the portion of the "Guwadi" where his mother was living with his brother accused-appellant Prabhu Ram. He saw Prabhu Ram was having a thick "Latth" in his hand and his mother was lying on the ground soiled with blood. In the FIR, it was also mentioned that Chunni Lal wanted to control Prabhu Ram D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.138/2007 3/13 then Prabhu Ram tried to attack him also. It has further been mentioned in the FIR that on listening hues and cries of Chunni Lal, his other relatives namely Shankar and Sava also reached the spot but Prabhu Ram threatened to kill them also and then Prabhu Ram escaped and ran away from the "Guwadi" leaving his mother lying on the floor whose brain had come out from her body.
5. The trial court found the accused-appellant guilty of murder of his own mother. It has been argued on behalf of the accused-appellant that case against him was not proved beyond doubt and the trial court has convicted him only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It has also been argued that the accused-appellant was an insane person and he was suffering from schizophrenia and he was incapable of making his defence so the trial court has wrongly convicted the accused-appellant under section 302 IPC. It has also been argued on his behalf that being lunatic and of unsound mind, the trial against the accused-appellant deserves to be quashed and he should be acquitted from the charge of Section 302 IPC.
6. The trial court was of the opinion that the accused- appellant was capable of making defence so the trial was not D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.138/2007 4/13 stopped and it was held by the trial court that the provisions of chapter XXV of Cr.PC were not attracted in the case. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused-appellant was represented in the trial court by his Advocate Mr.Kamlesh Sen and no doctor was examined on behalf of the accused- appellant to prove his alleged lunacy and unsoundness of mind. The accused-appellant was not suffering from any unsoundness of mind, which is clear from his statement, which he has given under section 315 Cr.PC as DW1 which is as follows:-
"मर म त ध पब ई मर स थ र ज खश रहत थ । उसक मर स कभ क ई झगड नह हआ। मर म त क मत! # क पहल मर क प गलपन क द&र पडत थ जजसक ईल ज झ ड फक वग+र मर म म करव त थ । जजस ददन मर म त मर उस ददन म- खत म. थ। खत म. पललस आई थ । पललस आई जब भ म- प गल थ मझ पत नह चल क# हआ। मर म2 मर इसक मझ पत ह नह । मझ पललस द र पकडन क ब द मर ईल ज हत ज धपर भत5 कक# थ । मर ईल ज क क गज पललस न पश कक# ह+ ज पदश8 ड .1 ह+ । पदश8 ड . 2 क स थ म. र ज च ररप र8 ह+ । ईल ज समबनध पम ण पत पदश8 ड 3 व 4 ह+ । जजरह द र अपर ल क अलभ# जक xxxxx मर म2 क लकड स म र ह त मझ ध# न नह ह+ । कफर कह म-न नह म र । मर म2 मर तब म- ब हर थ । #ह गलत ह+ कक म-न मर म2 क म र ह । #ह गलत ह+ कक म-न मर म2 क लकड स म र ह ।"
D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.138/2007 5/13
7. Attention of this court has been drawn towards Ex-D1 to Ex-D4 by the learned Advocate for the accused-appellant. In Ex-D3, it has been mentioned by the Assistant Professor of psychiatry, S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur that the accused- appellant Prabhu Ram might have been suffering from schizophrenia but his condition was improving day by day and indoor treatment for him in the Hospital was not required looking to his mental condition. Ex-D3 has not been proved by the statement of any doctor in defence and hence, after hearing both the parties, it can be said that the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has not been able to prove that the accused-appellant was an insane and so he could not claim the benefit of section 84 of IPC wherein it has been mentioned that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who , at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of Act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
8. In AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2443, Seralli Wali Mohd. V/s State of Maharashtra, the accused was convicted under section 302 IPC for having caused death of his wife and a female child with a 'Chopper'. Rejecting the plea of insanity, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the law presumes that D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.138/2007 6/13 every person of the age of discretion to be sane unless the contrary is proved. It would be most dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. The mere fact that no motive has been proved why the accused murdered his wife and child nor the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broken open, could not indicate that he was insane or, that he did not have the necessary 'mens-rea' for the commission of the of the crime.
9. Thus, the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant is not tenable. Now we will see that if the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt against the accused-appellant regarding the charge of section 302 IPC. On merits, we have perused the judgment of the trial court. We have perused the record of the trial court and we have also heard counsel for both the parties.
10. Pw10 Dr.Kusum Lata Agarwal has proved death of Mst Dhapu Devi as homicide. She states that on conducting postmortem of Mst Dhapu Devi, she found following injuries on the body of Mst Dhapu Devi:-
D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.138/2007 7/13 "मत ! क क द ई तरफ फर रमप पर ईरल एव प लश8#ल ओकस प रल ब न पर तरह स बबखर हई थ और अदर क मजFतFक ब हर आ रह थ । र ईर कर रड ह र8 र कर हई थ । पर मह म. खन थ और ब च क ऊपर क द दत रर हए थ। एक कचल हआ घव 3x1 स.म .x ब न ड प थ । वह स ब न क रकड ब हर आ रह थ । ब # पर क मध# म. उक च र थ । कचल हआ घ व 2.5x1/2 स.म . ज हडड तक गहर थ ज द # प+र क पज पर थ । मत ! क द # रमपरर, पर ईरल, ओकस प रल एव ब न क फकचर थ एव द न पर क हडड # क फकचर थ । तथ मत ! क धप क द दहन मगज ल और द दहन ओरब र म. फकचर थ । उक सभ च र मत! # पव8 क थ । च र मत ! क क द ई तरफ फर रमप पर ईरल एव प लश8#ल ओकस प रल ब न पर तरह बबखर हआ ह न स एव फकचर एव बन ब हर आन स उक च र पक!तत क स म न# बनकम म. मत! # क ररत करन क ललए पण8रपण प# 8प थ । मर र # म. ध पब ई क मत! # हम ररज क श&क ड# र एकसनर व इनP र बन क वजह स हई थ ।
प सरम र8 म ररप र8 पदश8 प . 13 ह- जजस पर ए स ब मर मत! # ब बत र # ह-। एव स स ड मर हसत कर ह-।"
11. In her cross examination, Dr.Kusum Lata Agarwal has stated that such type of injuries cannot be caused by fall on a stone.
12. Then, we will examine the examination statement of PW6 Chunni Lal who is real brother of accused-appellant and son of deceased Mst Dhapu Devi. He is author of the D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.138/2007 8/13 FIR also. In his examination-in-chief, he fully supported the contents of the FIR. He states that along with Shankar and Sava, he reached the spot where his mother was lying soiled with blood and brutally killed by his younger brother. A portion of his statement is narrated as follows:
"चचमन क र शन म. दख त मर म क ल श खन स लथपथ पड थ । लसर फर हआ थ । द दहन आख अदरदब हई थ । द न क नT म. खन आ रह थ । न क पर च र थ । ओर उसक ठड पर भ च र थ । मर म क ख पड क रकड द फ र ल श स दर पड हए थ। ओर लसर क ब ल ल श स एक फर क दर पर पड हए थ। पभर म क मक न म. पभर म क चलह बबखर हआ थ व ल श क प स खन पड थ । कफर मन पललस क फ न कक# । कफर पललस म&क पर र त क ब रह बज आई थ । पललस क मन घरन सथल पर ररप र8 द ज पदश8 प . 11 ह-।"
13. In his cross examination, this witness denies the suggestion that his brother Prabhu Ram had not been married because of his poor mental health, rather he states that his mother used to remain sick and Prabhu Ram used to cook food for her also. He states that some D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.138/2007 9/13 times, Prabhu Ram used to behave unusually but when he was fit then he used to live with his mother only and at that time, he used to give good services to his mother. He denies the suggestion that Prabhu Ram has not killed his mother and has not threatened him also. He also states that it is wrong to suggest that he wants to grab land of his brother Prabhu Ram.
14. PW7 Shankar is also supporting the statement of Chunni Lal. He also states that he reached the spot soon after the incident. He says that accused-appellant Prabhu Ram was standing with a 'Latth' in his hand and he was shouting "I have killed my mother and I will kill three of you also". This witness has also not been shattered in his cross examination. He states that it is wrong to suggest that accused-appellant Prabhu Ram is suffering from lunatic fits or insanity.
15. The next important witness is PW3 Sava Ram who is grand son of Mst Dhapu Devi and nephew of the accused- appellant. He also supports the prosecution story. He D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.138/2007 10/13 says that he had seen that night Mst Dhapu Devi lying on the ground after being killed. He states that Mst Dhapu Devi was soiled with blood and her brain had come out of her head because of beating and her hair and pieces of bone were also lying scattered near her dead body. He admits that accused-appellant had no previous enmity with his mother. He also states that Chunni Lal and Shankar etc. were also having no enmity with accused-appellant Prabhu Ram. He says that Prabhu Ram used to get fits of insanity and so he could not have been married. He states that when Prabhu Ram was not in fits then he used to behave normally. He states that Prabhu Ram used to behave normally with his mother also.
16. PW1 Chopa Ram is a witness of the seizure memo of 'Latth'. He states that if Prabhu Ram had killed his mother then it must be due to his mental ill health.
17. PW2 Babu Lal is also a formal witness of 'Panchnama Las' (Ex-1 & 2), memo of Supurdagi of dead body (Ex.3), D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.138/2007 11/13 Site Plan (Ex.4) and seizure memo of Plan as well as blood stained soil (Ex.3 & 4). He says that Prabhu Ram used to get hysteric fits.
18. PW4 Ganesh is also a formal witness of the seizure memo of 'Latth' (Ex.5) and site Plan (Ex.6) and seizure memo of blouse of the deceased (Ex.7). PW5 Kailash Chand, HC is also a formal witness to prove the fact that the seized articles were kept sealed intact in Malkhana. PW8 Thana Ram, HC is also carrier of sealed packets to the FSL. PW9 Paras Kumar, HC is also carrier of sealed packets to the FSL.
19. PW11 Om Prakash Gautam the then Station House Officer, Police Station Abu Road Sadar has proved the formalities of the investigation. He states that the information given by the accused-appellant was recorded as Exp-17 wherein he had told the investigating officer that he can get the 'Latth' recovered. He states that the 'Latth' was recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant and its seizure memo Ex-5 was D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.138/2007 12/13 prepared in the presence of witnesses Chopa Ram and Ganesh Ram. He states that none of the witnesses had told him about the fits of lunacy of accused-appellant Prabhu Ram. He states that rather the witnesses had told him that Prabhu Ram was having wrong impression that his mother was under the influence of some evil spirits and that is why, he had killed his mother.
20. In the circumstances of the case, it is proved that Mst Dhapu Devi had died only because of haemorrhagic and neurological shock due to excessive injury to brain. Homicide is duly proved. FSL report (Ex.18) proves that 'Latth' (Danda) recovered at the instance of the accused- appellant was blood stained and blood was found to be of human origin. FSL report also proves the fact that the 'Latth' (Danda) recovered at the instance of the accused- appellant and the blouse of the deceased, both were having stains of blood group-A. The statements of the witnesses particularly of Sava Ram, Chunni Lal and Shankar have also proved the fact that it was only the accused-appellant who had killed his mother and the D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.138/2007 13/13 prosecution story does not leave any doubt regarding guilt of the accused-appellant. Except the plea of insanity, the accused-appellant has raised no other defence and the plea of insanity has also not been duly proved by the accused-appellant in the trial court. No doctor had been examined on behalf of the accused-appellant during his trial to prove his alleged insanity at the time of the alleged murder of his mother.
21. Thus, this appeal filed by the accused-appellant Prabhu Ram is bereft of any force and deserves to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the accused-appellant Prabhu Ram under section 302 IPC is upheld as such. Two true copies of this judgment be sent to the concerned Jail, one for the accused-appellant and one for the Jail record. One copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court along with the record of the case. [ATUL KUMAR JAIN], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J. Anil Singh