Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sattu Urf Satyanarayan vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 7 February, 2017
Author: Prakash Gupta
Bench: Prakash Gupta
1
CRLA No.743/2011
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 743 / 2011
Sattu @ Satyanarayan
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through Pp.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinswar, Senior Counsel, with Mr. Rajesh Choudhary For the State (s) : Mr. Aladeen Khan, P.P. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Judgment 07/02/2017 :
Per : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia J. (Oral) :
The present appellant, namely Sattu @ Satyanarayan, solitary accused, was a tenant in the house of deceased - Namo @ Narendra Kumar Gautam.
The case of the prosecution is that on 18.08.2009 at 07:30 P.M. the appellant in the house, situated at Kota Road, Baran, committed murder of his landlord - Namo @ Narendra Kumar Gautam by firing shot from his own licenced twelve-bore gun.
In the present case, in order to secure the conviction of the appellant, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony upon Tanmay Gautam (PW-2) and Kapil (PW-5) both minor sons of the deceased. To corroborate the testimony, the prosecution has also examined Shakuntala (PW-3) wife of the 2 CRLA No.743/2011 deceased - Namo @ Narendra Kumar Gautam, who immediately after the alleged occurrence was attracted to the spot.
Believing the eye-witnesses account, the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Baran (Rajasthan), vide its impugned judgment dated 22.06.2011, convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.
Having convicted the appellant for the above said offences, the trial Judge, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellant as under :-
"For offence under Section 302 I.P.C. : The appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.
"For offence under Section 506 I.P.C. : The appellant was sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional simple imprisonment.
"For offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act : The appellant was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional simple imprisonment. The trial Court further ordered that all the sentences awarded upon the appellant shall run concurrently."
Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the present appellant has preferred instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C.
The criminal proceedings, in the present case, were set into motion on the basis of written-report (Exhibit-P/1) presented by complainant- Omprakash Gautam (PW-1), brother of deceased before Suresh Kumar 3 CRLA No.743/2011 Danodiya (PW-13), who was then posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Kotwali Baran.
Suresh Kumar Danodiya (PW-13) in the Court deposed that on 18.08.2009, being posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Baran, at 07:35 P.M., he received an information that in front of Charmurti Chauraha at Kota Road, Baran, a gun shot was fired. On receipt of said information, he reached at the spot. In the shop, one person was lying fallen.
The blood was oozing. Investigating Officer turned the body and could feel the pulse. Immediately, in a Government vehicle, injured was brought to the Government Hospital. The attending Doctor declared injured dead. The dead- body was kept at the mortuary for the Post Mortem. The elder brother of the deceased, namely Omprakash Gautam (PW-1) at the hospital presented written-report (Exhibit-P/1). The said report through Constable - Nemichand (PW-6) was sent to the Police Station for registration of a formal First Information Report. On the basis of said written-report (Exhibit-P/1), a formal First Information Report bearing No.536/2009 was registered at Police Station, Kotwali Baran, District Baran for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. This witness, being Investigating Officer of the case, went to the place of occurrence to inspect the spot. S.I.- Krishangopal informed him that the person, who fired shot at deceased - Namo @ Narendra Kumar Gautam, was apprehended by the mob and S.I.- Bajrang Singh had taken him to the Police Station. The witness stated that since Sattu @ Satyanarayan was apprehended by the crowd and injuries were found on his person, for giving first-aid, he was sent to the hospital. This witness further stated that S.I. - Bajrang Singh, along with accused, had also taken into possession his licenced twelve-bore gun vide memo Exhibit-P/10. 4 CRLA No.743/2011 One live cartridge was also recovered from possession of the accused vide memo Exhibit-P/11.
Omprakash Gautam (PW-1), elder brother of deceased - Namo @ Narendra Kumar Gautam, in the written-report (Exhibit-P/1) stated that on 18.08.2009 at around 07:30 P.M. he was returning from the Park where he had gone for a walk. While he was returning, he saw that mob had gathered in front of the house of his younger brother - Namo @ Narendra Kumar Gautam. He went inside the house. He was informed by two sons of deceased, namely Tanmay Gautam (PW-2) and Kapil (PW-5) that Sattu @ Satyanarayn, tenant entered into the shop of deceased and fired gun shot. Both the sons went running to the mother. The mother in order to save the children ran towards the house of Kishan Maharaj. The mob carried his brother to the hospital. Complainant stated that his brother, due to gun shot injury died. Therefore, legal action be taken against the accused.
As we have already noticed, on the basis of above said written- report (Exhibit-P1) a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/8) was registered.
Dr. Laduram Lohiya (PW-14) vide Post Mortem Report (Exhibit- P/24) conducted an autopsy on the dead-body of Namo @ Narendra Kumar Gautam. The Post Mortem was conducted on 19.08.2009 at 08:30 A.M. In the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/24), Doctor noted following injuries :-
"1. Punctured lacerated wound on left arm. in upper 1/3rd region. Antero lat. aspect of size 2.5 x 2.5 cm x 3 cm deep. Skin muscles tissue are injured 2.5 x 3 cm wound is present on medial aspect of arm corresponding with antero. Lat aspect wound. The margins of size of antero. lat aspect wound one inverted while skin is medial aspect wound are everted.
Blood is present at both wounds.5 CRLA No.743/2011
2. Punctured lacerated wound present in left axilla at ant. axillary line at 4th rib region, antero lat present is size 4 x 3 cm. fracture present at 4th rib and woumd present in full thickness of chest wall. Margin of skin are inverted. On dissection of chest, both lungs are collapsed. Lt. thoracic cavity have about 1.5 liter of blood and right thoracic cavity about 2 liter blood (upper lobe) Lt. Lung is injured in upper lobe from lat aspect to medial aspect in size 3 x 3 cm in full thickness at lower part substernal structure beneath Trachea and oesophagus also injured. Right lung is injured at middle lobe from medial to lat. aspect of size 2.5 x 2.5 cm in full thickness.
A piece of metal (bullet) present at the wound of entry near 4 th rib. Another metal piece (bullet) present at the Right side chest wall near 5th rib 5th rib is also fractured at post axillary line. Wad is present at the wound No.1. collected and preserved bottle. Metal piece (piece of bullet) and remaining bullet (in form of metal) is preserved in another again bottle 10 cc blood is taken from right thorocic cavity in vial for FSL Ex. Purpose."
As per opinion of the Members of the Medical Board, the cause of death was shock, due to injuries to both lungs, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Dr. Phool Singh Choudhary (PW-15) vide Injury Report (Exhibit- D/3) on 19.08.2009 had examined present appellant - Sattu @ Satyanarayan son of Ghasilal Chhipa. In the Injury Report (Exhibit-D/3), said Doctor had noted following injuries on the person of the accused :-
"1. Lacerated wound right hand at palm of size 10 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm with clotted blood. Wound is extended from wrist joint upper the base of index finger.
2. Lacerated wound on forehead right side of size 4- ½ x 1 x ¼ cm with clotted blood.
3. Bruise on face right side below eye of size 2½ x 2 cm with bluish red colour.
4. Abrasion in right side arm in upper 1/3rd of size 5 x 4 cm with red colour, simple blunt.
5. Abrasion on left elbow of size 1 x 1 with red colour. Simple blunt."
Tanmay Gautam (PW-2) in the Court stated that on 18.08.2009 at about 07:30 P.M. his father was sitting on the chair on the road. He, along with his younger brother -Kapil were standing near their father. His mother 6 CRLA No.743/2011 was cooking meals in the kitchen. From second floor above their shop tenant - Sattu @ Satyanarayan Chhipa, who was residing from last six years, came armed with single barrel gun. He fired a shot at his father. Thereafter, accused threatened him that he will finish his mother also. His mother, along with this witness (PW-2) and other brother Kapil (PW-5) went towards house of Kishan Maharaj to take shelter. Sattus @ Satyanarayan followed them till S.B.I. Bank. Due to hue and cry raised by mother, mob had gathered. The said mob apprehended Sattus @ Satyanarayan in front of S.B.I. Bank.
To similar effect is the statement made by Kapil (PW-5), another brother of Tanmay Gautam (PW-2).
Shakuntala (PW-3), widow of the deceased and mother of two eye-witnesses, in the Court deposed that she came running out of the kitchen, after hearing the noise of the shot fired by the accused. The accused was apprehended by the crowd. The mob gathered had also given beating to the accused.
The present appellant - Sattus @ Satyanarayan in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.c. has given following version :-
"ifjoknh i{k eq>s esjs fdjk;s ds edku ls fudkyuk pkgrk FkkA esjs ls ueks e`rd us ikap yk[k :i;s m/kkj fy;s Fks tks og gM+i x;kA ueks us esjs ij flj ij ryokj dh pksV ekjh ftls eSaus nkfgus gkFk ls jksdk] ugha rks esjk flj dV tkrkA pksV esjh gFksyh ij vHkh Hkh ekStwn gSA blls cpus ds fy, rFkk esjs }kjk edku [kkyh ugha djus ls ;g >wBk eqdnek cuk dj Qlk;k gSA eSa funks"k gWwA"
From perusal of the statement made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it is evident that he has admitted his presence at the place of occurrence. He has also admitted that in the alleged occurrence, he was caused injuries by the deceased. However, in the statement recorded 7 CRLA No.743/2011 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused has not stated that he had fired a shot in his self-defence.
It is undeniable fact that at the time of alleged occurrence, the appellant was apprehended by the mob and thereafter, was handed over to the Police. Immediately, the appellant was also medico-legally examined and injuries were found on his person. Thus, duration of injuries on the person of deceased corroborates the presence of the appellant at the scene of occurrence. Admittedly, alleged occurrence had taken place in front of the shop of the deceased.
It has come in the prosecution evidence that on the second floor above the shop, the appellant from last six years was residing as a tenant of the deceased. The occurrence has taken place in the evening at 07:30 P.M. and the presence of two children, namely Tanmay (PW-2), aged fourteen- years and Kapil (PW-5) aged thirteen-years at the place of occurrence is probable and natural. The said witnesses are expected to be present along with their father. In the present case, immediately, Shakuntala (PW-3), mother of two children was attracted to the spot from the kitchen where she was cooking evening meals.
It has also come in the prosecution evidence that the present appellant chased the widow of deceased and two children. At that stage, the crowd came to rescue of the widow, who along with three children was passing through Bazar raising hue and cry.
Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, has submitted that the prosecution has not explained the injuries on the 8 CRLA No.743/2011 person of accused, thus, the witnesses have suppressed the origin and genesis of the alleged occurrence. It has been contended by the ld. Senior Counsel that the possibility cannot be ruled out that since the relations between the landlord and tenant were not cordial, suddenly on the spur of moment something happened, which led to scuffle and, therefore, for firing of one shot, we should convert offence from Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304- Part-I I.P.C.
The above said argument raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, is not tenable.
The appellant has used single barrel gun. The barrel of the gun itself is two or three feet long. In the present case, Doctor, who conducted Post Mortem, has admitted that around the injuries, no blackening, tattooing, and charring was present. Thus, the shot was fired from a distance. The firing of the shot from a distance rule out any kind of scuffle.
So far the injuries on the person of the accused are concerned, they were simple in nature. Shakuntala (PW-3) has admitted, in her examination-in-chief, that the crowd had given beating to the appellant. The present appellant was arrested at the spot, while he was chasing the widow and her three children. It is but natural that accused who from single barrel had fired a shot when apprehended by the crowd was given thrashing by the mob.
It has come in the prosecution evidence that the crowd had handed over the appellant to the Police. It has also come in the prosecution evidence that accused was armed with single barrel gun. Thus, it is not known to everybody that after firing of the shot, accused could not reload the gun. 9 CRLA No.743/2011
In the present case, First Information Report (Exhibit- P/8) was promptly lodged. It contains spontaneous version and furthermore, at the time of lodging of the report, both the deceased and accused reached at hospital.
Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, ld. senior counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, unable to persuade this Court, qua conversion of offence, has contended that the medical evidence contradict ocular version, as Dr. Ladu Ram Lohiya (PW-14), in his examination-in-chief, has admitted that the injuries were caused with a blunt weapon.
We are unable to accept the opinion of the Doctor, as it has come in his examination-in-chief, that from the lungs, two metallic pieces, which are part of the bullet were recovered, along with wad. A perusal of injuries on the person of deceased reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment is sufficient to discard the argument raised. The appellant was also arrested, along with the gun, even though report of the analyst has not been proved on record. We intend to believe on the ocular version, as circumstances surroundings occurrence, lend assurance to the testimony of the eye-witnesses.
Taking totality of the facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed. (PRAKASH GUPTA) J. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) J.
ashok