Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Indra Singh vs State on 11 March, 2019
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 683/2012
Indra Singh son of Prayag Singh, by caste Rajput, resident of
Parewar, Mohangarh Police Station, District Jaisalmer
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Bhati, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 11/03/2019 The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC has been preferred by appellant Indra Singh being aggrieved of the judgment dated 22.05.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No.57/2010, whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life term imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days.
Succinctly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
Ganga Singh (P.W.1) lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) with the SHO, Police Station Mohangarh, Jaisalmer on 11.05.2010 at 3.00 p.m. alleging inter alia that on the very same day, his elder brothers Kalyan Singh and Deep Singh, who were both working as teachers in the school at Leela Parewar, were returning (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:11:49 AM) (2 of 14) [CRLA-683/2012] home between 1.00 p.m. and 1.30 pm. after the school hours. A Kachcha way is constructed for proceeding from the school premises at Leela Parewar to the Village Parewar. Kalyan Singh and Deep Singh had reached about half km. from Leela Parewar. Kan Singh and Babu Singh, both residents of the same village, who were following them, heard the noise of a tractor being driven at a high speed. They saw Inder Singh S/o Prayag Singh driving the tractor on the same path. Narayan Giri S/o Mor Giri was also sitting on the tractor. When the tractor reached close Kalyan Singh and Deep Singh, both of them tried to take evasive measures to save themselves, but Inder Singh did not slow down and rather pursued them with his tractor. They ran and took shelter of the trees growing in the nearby field, but Inder Singh pursued them even there, collided his tractor against both these persons and ran it over them after they had fallen down. When Inder Singh noticed that Kalyan Singh was still breathing, he got down from his tractor, took out an iron rod and inflicted injuries to Kalyan Singh. On seeing the assault, Narayan Giri, who was sitting on the tractor, got frightened and tried to run away towards the village. On this, Inder Singh got back on the tractor and pursued him with the intention of killing him. However, Narayan Giri somehow managed to escape the wrath of Inder Singh. Kan Singh and Babu Singh and Narayan Giri, all of whom saw the incident, gave the gory details thereof to the first informant. The first informant alleged that Inder Singh had killed his brothers owing to old family feud by cruelly crushing them under his tractor and by blows of an iron bar.
On the basis of this written report, a formal FIR No.43/2010 was registered at the Police Station Mohangarh for (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:11:49 AM) (3 of 14) [CRLA-683/2012] the offence under Section 302 IPC and investigation was commenced. The Investigating Officer conducted site inspection. The Medical Board, of which Dr. Surendra Duggad was a member, conducted postmortem of both the bodies and issued postmortem reports Ex.P/20 (Kalyan Singh) and Ex.P/21 (Deep Singh). The statements of various witnesses, including the first informant and the three eye-witnesses named in the FIR, were recorded under Section 161 CrPC. The accused appellant was arrested on 12.05.2010. His blood-stained shirt, the iron rod and the tractor used in the incident were seized. The incriminating articles were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical and serological examination. After concluding investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Since the offence was Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer, who framed charge against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial.
The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited as many as 96 documents in support of its case. Upon being confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, the accused offered a bald denial in his statement under Section 313 CrPC and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case. He stated that on an earlier occasion, his nephew Trilok Singh had been beaten and thrown into bushes believing him to be dead by 8 to 10 people, including the deceased and the witnesses who had given evidence against him, and owing to this enmity, he had been falsely implicated in this case. One witness Dhirendra Narayan Pathak was examined (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:11:49 AM) (4 of 14) [CRLA-683/2012] and four documents were exhibited in defence. After hearing and appreciating the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and upon appreciating the evidence available on record, learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above. Hence, this appeal.
Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. An accident pure and simple has been given the colour of double murder just in order to wreak vengeance upon the accused owing to enmity. No one actually saw the incident, which happened in an isolated area. Narayan Giri (P.W.2), Kan Singh (P.W.4) and Babu Singh (P.W.5) were created as eye-witnesses and their testimony is false and fabricated and unworthy of credence. He urged that viewed in the light of the cross-examination conducted by the defence, the testimony of these witnesses is not reliable and worth belief. He further submitted that the statements of these witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 CrPC after a significant delay of nearly 25 days and as such, their evidence is not credible. He further submitted that as per the evidence of the defence witness Dhirendra Pathak, the complainant party has taken accident claims pursuant to the death of the two deceased persons and as such, manifestly, a pure and simple case of vehicular accident has been given the colour of murder. He, thus, craved acceptance of the appeal and sought acquittal for the accused appellant.
Per contra, learned Public prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He submitted that the witness Narayan Giri is an (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:11:49 AM) (5 of 14) [CRLA-683/2012] independent person, who had no occasion to falsely implicate the accused. On the fateful day, he was sitting on the tractor tanker, which was being driven by the accused. Immediately on seeing the accused taking offensive measures against the deceased, he got down from the tractor and ran away to save his own life because the accused tried to pursue him with tractor so as to eliminate him as well. He contended that there is no animosity whatsoever between Narayan Giri and the accused, which could motivate him to give false evidence against the appellant. He further urged that witnesses Narayan Giri (P.W.2), Kan Singh (P.W.4) and Babu Singh (P.W.5) are perfectly natural and truthful witnesses of the incident. He urged that the fact regarding the appellant having used the tractor as a weapon to run over the deceased has been proved beyond all manner of doubt by the photographs taken by the Mobile Forensic Unit, Jaisalmer just after the incident, wherein the broken headlight of the tractor and the crisscrossing tread marks of the tractor's tyres, blood stained soil and the sheared bark of the bushes are clearly visible. The tractor was stained with blood. The learned Public Prosecutor fervently submitted that it is a clear case, wherein the accused not only brutally and intentionally collided his tractor with the two deceased, but thereafter also continued to run them over in a demonly manner and stopped only after satisfying his lust for blood. He thus, urged that the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial court vide the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference whatsoever.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the respective counsel and have gone (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:11:49 AM) (6 of 14) [CRLA-683/2012] through the material available on record and threadbare re- appreciated the evidence led by the parties.
The written report (Ex.P/1) was submitted promptly by Ganga Singh (P.W.1) to the SHO, Police Station Mohangarh on 11.05.2010 at 3.00 pm., i.e. just after a couple of hours of the incident. Ganga Singh himself is not an eye-witness of the incident and he lodged the FIR on the basis of information supplied to him by Narayan Giri, Kan Singh and Babu Singh. The most significant fact, which comes to light from the FIR lodged immediately after the incident, is that the names of the three eye- witnesses are mentioned therein. The incident had virtually the undertones of an act of barbarism. Two school teachers Shri Kalyan Singh and Deep Singh, who were walking home after the school hours, were brutally crushed and beaten to death by the accused. In the rural areas, when such incident happens, the impact thereof can very well be perceived and it often happens that the entire village goes hungry for days together as the families do not light the hearths to prepare food owing to the prevailing grief. The minds of the persons, who witness such a gruesome incident would go numb and the shock might prevail for days together. In this background, the contention of Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned defence counsel, that the statements of three eye- witnesses were recorded by the Investigating officer after some delay loses significance.
P.W.2 Narayan Giri admittedly belonged to a different caste and had no animosity whatsoever with the accused appellant. He gave a graphic description of the incident stating in his evidence that he had taken lift on the tractor water tanker being driven by the accused Inder Singh. Kalyan Singh and Deep (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:11:49 AM) (7 of 14) [CRLA-683/2012] Singh were walking on foot. Inder Singh followed them with his tractor tanker till they reached near the Village Parewar. He intentionally collided his tractor with Kalyan Singh and Deep Singh, due to which, Deep Singh fell down instantaneously and Kalyan Singh received an injury on his leg. The witness tried to run away, on which, Inder Singh exhorted that he too would be killed. However, Narayan Giri somehow found an avenue of escape. He stated that the bumper part of the tractor collided with both the deceased and that the collision was intentional. He further stated that Kalyan Singh got up after the collision, but he could not see as to what happened thereafter. True it is that the Public Prosecutor confronted the witness with his previous statement recorded by the police for getting explanation of few contradictions, but the witness was not declared hostile. The witness gave a plausible explanation that soon after the incident, he ran away and thus, could not see the entire sequence of events. In cross-examination, not even a bald suggestion was given to the witness that he was not sitting upon the tractor which the accused appellant was driving when the incident took place. He affirmed the fact that he gave the same statement to the police during investigation as he had stated in his examination-in- chief. Thus, from the evidence of Narayan Giri, it can safely be inferred that he was sitting on the tractor tanker being driven by the accused and that he saw the accused intentionally colliding his tractor with the two deceased, who were walking down the road. The witness tried to get down and run away on seeing the ghastly incident, whereupon the accused threatened him of dire consequences. Manifestly, the tenor of evidence of this witness reflects a whole lot about his truthfulness. His attempt in trying to (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:11:49 AM) (8 of 14) [CRLA-683/2012] escape on seeing the accused making the intentional collision also reflects his natural human conduct. Total lack of cross- examination from the witness regarding the fact that he was sitting on the tractor being driven by the accused and that he saw initial act, wherein the accused collided the tractor with the two deceased, convinces us beyond all manner of doubt that the witness Narayan Giri has given evidence, which is thoroughly reliable and acceptable.
Kan Singh (P.W.4) also gave evidence to the effect that he and Babu Singh were following Deep Singh and Kalyan Singh, who were going towards the Village Parewar on the fateful day about 1.30 to 2.00 pm. He also stated that Narayan Giri was sitting on the tractor to which water tanker was attached. They saw them coming from behind. 'Tanot Rai Water Supplier' was written in English and Inder Singh's mobile number was also painted on the tractor tanker, which was being driven by Inder Singh. On hearing sound of the tractor, Deep Singh and Kalyan Singh tried to step aside, but Inder Singh turned the tractor towards them and collided it with Deep Singh and Kalyan Singh and drove it over them. Deep Singh fell down on the ground, but Kalyan Singh managed to get up. The accused was trying to turn the tractor, when Narayan Giri got down therefrom. Thereafter Inder Singh drove the tractor back towards Deep Singh and crushed him under its wheels. He also tried to crush Kalyan Singh, who tried his best to hide behind a Ber tree. Inder Singh pursued him with the tractor, which collided with the tree and its front light broke. However, Inder Singh did not relent and continued pursuing Kalyan Singh, who was trying his best to escape. At this point, Inder Singh stopped the tractor, got down (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:11:49 AM) (9 of 14) [CRLA-683/2012] therefrom, took out an iron bar and hit Kalyan Singh on the head. The witness and Babu Singh became frightened on seeing the incident and ran towards the village. Thereafter, they collected the villagers and came back to the place of incident. The police was informed. Various panchnamas etc. were prepared at the spot. On perusal of the cross-examination conducted from Kan Singh, it is apparent that apart from a bald suggestion that Inder Singh was not present in the Village Leela Parewar on the day of the incident, no significant question was put to the witness, which can discredit or nullify the deposition made by him in the examination-in-chief. The witness explained that he and Babu Singh did not make any attempt to save the deceased because they themselves were afraid for their lives. On a suggestion given by the defence, the witness categorically stated that there is no significant dispute between the families of the deceased and the family of Ganga Singh. The witness affirmatively denied the suggestion that he and Babu Singh had not seen the incident and had been created as eye-witnesses. He fervently denied the defence suggestion that the incident happened in form of an unintentional vehicular accident and affirmed that the accused intentionally murdered the two deceased.
P.W.5 Babu Singh also gave evidence almost on the identical lines as Kan Singh. Nothing significant was elicited in his cross-examination, which can discredit the version as deposed by Babu Singh in his examination-in-chief.
On careful appreciation of the testimony of these two witnesses, we are satisfied that both have given a truthful narration of the incident as seen by them and their testimony cannot be doubted in any manner whatsoever.
(Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:11:49 AM)
(10 of 14) [CRLA-683/2012] Other than the testimony of the eye-witnesses, the most significant circumstance, which convinces us regarding the complicity of the accused appellant in the crime is the fact that the tractor tanker, which was used to commit the offence was recovered from him on 12.05.2010 as stated by Khet Singh (P.W.8). Name of the accused and his mobile number are prominently painted thereupon in red colour. The one headlight of the tractor was broken and its mud-guard was bent. The accused also got recovered the iron bar used to assault Kalyan Singh, which too was seized by the Investigating Officer. Despite extensive cross-examination by the defence, the witness Khet Singh (P.W.8), who stood as a Panch in the recovery proceedings could not be shaken from his testimony.
Dr. K.R. Panwar (P.W.9) and Dr. Surendra Duggad (P.W.19), being the members of the Medical Board, which carried out the postmortem upon the bodies of deceased Kalyan Singh and Deep Singh, issued the postmortem reports Ex.P/20 and Ex.P/21 respectively. They gave vivid detail of the injuries noticed by them on the two dead bodies. In cross-examination, Dr. Surendra was given a suggestion that the injuries noticed in the postmortem Ex.P/20 could be caused in a vehicular collision. The doctors categorically stated that the injuries caused to both the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and could be caused by running over of a vehicle.
Here, we would briefly take note of the injuries found on the two dead bodies. A lacerated wound measuring 9 cm. X 12 cm. was noticed on the skull area of Kalyan Singh deceased, under which the depressed fracture existed. A bruise measuring 30 cm. X 10 cm. was noticed on the chest area of Deep Singh, deceased, (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:11:49 AM) (11 of 14) [CRLA-683/2012] underneath which 5 ribs were broken. The lungs were swollen. The abdominal muscles were crushed and spleen and liver were badly damaged. We are thoroughly satisfied that these injuries could only have been caused by running over of a vehicle. Thus, from the testimony of these two doctors and considering the tenor of cross-examination made from them, it becomes clear as day- light that the gruesome and grave injuries noticed on the bodies of the two deceased included large number of such wounds, which could have been caused only by collision as well running over of a vehicle. That apart, some blunt weapon injuries were also noticeable on the body of Kalyan Singh, which were apparently caused by the blows of a blunt weapon like iron bar. The opinion of these two doctors and the nature and number of injuries noticed on the bodies of the deceased corroborate in material particulars the testimony of the three eye-witnesses.
During the course of investigation, Bheem Singh (P.W.11) conducted the mechanical examination of the tractor in question and found its right side headlight damaged by impact; the bumper was bent and was having the tree barks stuck thereupon. These observations also corroborate the testimony of the eye-witnesses.
Sher Singh (P.W.12), being the in-charge of Mobile Forensic Unit, Jaisalmer conducted the site inspection of the place of occurrence and took the photographs, Ex.P/26 to Ex.P/80. On a close scrutiny of these photographs, it is evident that crisscrossing tread-marks/patterns of tractor tyres are visible all over the place of occurrence. The dead bodies are lying in the path of these tread-marks. On careful appraisal of the photograph Ex.P/28, in which the dead body of Deep Singh is visible, a clear (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:11:49 AM) (12 of 14) [CRLA-683/2012] wide bruise with tread lines corresponding to a tractor tyre is visible. In the photograph Ex.P/32, a Ber tree is noticeably shaved of its bark at a level corresponding to the height of the bumper of the tractor. The broken headlight of the tractor is visible lying amongst the Ker bushes. Blood stains are visible near the tread- marks in the photograph Ex.P/36. In the photographs Ex.P/45 and Ex.P/46, the clear marks of blood stains are visible on the shirt worn by the accused. A scrutiny of these photographs visualizes the gory details of the incident as stated by the three eye-witnesses. The circumstances reflected from these photographs are so vivid and crystal clear that we cannot even for a moment doubt the fact that both the deceased were brutally murdered by intentionally running over of the tractor tanker, which was driven around many times to ensure that victims might not escape.
Gopal Ram (P.W.20), being the registered owner of the offending vehicle, stated that he had sold the tractor to Udai Singh.
Satyadev Hada (P.W.23), who was posted as SHO, Police Station Mohangarh, at the relevant point of time, conducted the routine investigation, arrested the accused, effected the recoveries and filed a charge-sheet against the accused appellant Inder Singh for the offence under Section 302 IPC. A suggestion was given to the Investigating Officer that he connived with the complainant party and created Babu Singh (real brother of Deep Singh) and Kan Singh (cousin of Kalyan Singh) to be the eye- witnesses and that no one actually saw the incident. He was also given a suggestion that he was marking time because the statement of both these witnesses under Section 161 CrPC were (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:11:49 AM) (13 of 14) [CRLA-683/2012] recorded after significant delay. However, we are not in the least convinced by this suggestion of the defence that the delay occasioned in recording of the statements of the eye-witnesses under Section 161 CrPC was utilized for cooking up the eye- witnesses of the incident. Ex facie, there is no such animosity between the parties, which would motivate the eye-witnesses to go to the extent of falsely implicating Inder Singh for the double murder and therefore, we are of the view that even though the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of these eye- witnesses under Section 161 CrPC after some delay, we are not convinced that this delay can be a ground to discard the otherwise convincing testimony of the three eye-witnesses.
So far as the contention of the defence that the complainant party took the insurance claim pursuant to the death of the two deceased is concerned, the same does not lend any credibility to the defence theory because the insurance policies were term plans and manifestly, upon the death of the insured, the benefit thereof was bound to be distributed to their nominees. Thus, nothing revolves around the fact that the insurance policies were encashed while portraying the death of the two insured to be caused in a road accident. Apparently, the death occurred by collision and running over of a vehicle and thus, the insurance claims were rightly collected.
The blood smeared soil from the place of occurrence, the shirt, pajama and baniyan worn by the accused, the clothes taken from the body of the deceased Kalyan Singh and the iron bar recovered form the accused were forwarded to the FSL for serelogical examination, from where, a report (Ex.P/94) was received that all these articles gave positive test for presence of (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:11:49 AM) (14 of 14) [CRLA-683/2012] 'B' Group blood. Thus, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses gains significant corroboration from the recovery of the blood- stained articles, referred to supra, all of which were bearing 'B' Group blood.
In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused appellant beyond all manner of doubt and there is no reason to doubt the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, on strength whereof, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant by the impugned judgment dated 22.05.2012. We are of the firm opinion that the trial court appreciated the evidence available on record in an absolutely just and apropos manner while convicting and sentencing the appellant as above. The impugned judgment dated 22.05.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No.57/2010 does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity whatsoever warranting interference therein.
As a consequence of the above discussion, we find no merit in the instant appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
2-Pramod/-
(Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 01:11:49 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)