Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. From the above all deposition of the witness as well as from all the exhibits, the fact whether death of Boopat Singh Gond is be the homicidal, such of the homicidal death does it amount to a murder and that such of the murder caused by accused Nos.1 and 2 with their common intention to committed the murder, have kept open for the discussion. According to the prosecution the cause death of deceased Boopat Singh Gond is an unnatural. In support of the same at in the case record prosecution have placed Ex.P9 inquest mahazar, Ex.P10 PM report along with Ex.P17 to Ex.P22 photographs in pertains to dead body of deceased. On perusal of case record, Ex.P9 inquest mahazar, Ex.P10 post mortem report marked in the case record with the consent of accused counsel. If go through Ex.P9 inquest mahazar and Ex.P10 PM report one prudent man could say the death of deceased Boopat Singh Gond, is a homicidal death. Further, if go through Ex.P9 inquest mahazar along with Ex.P17 to Ex.P22 photographs one could adjudged the cause death of the deceased is for the reason of anti-partem injuries. In support the cause death of deceased was for the reason of anti-partem injuries, where at Ex.P10 PM report, the medical officer have specifically reasoned the cause for death of deceased. If once go through the Ex.P10 PM report, wherein the Ex.P10 PM report the medical officer specifically opined the cause death of the deceased is due to " Shock and Hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained". Important to note the death of deceased and cause death of the deceased have not disputed by the accused. With this being of observation that I am of the view the prosecution have successfully proved the cause death of deceased Boopat Singh Gond was an unnatural and a homicidal.

23. Another limb of the prosecution case is, the homicidal death does it amount to a murder and that such of the murder whether caused by accused Nos.1 and 2 with their common intention to committed the murder. Case of the prosecution is, without of any reason, accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the murder of deceased Boopat Singh Gond with their common intention to committed the offence. Further case of the prosecution is, on a such a particular day, time and place, CW1 and deceased when they were returning to their room, accused Nos.1 and 2 have wrongfully restrained the CW1 and deceased and to furthrence of their common intention, accused No.2 slapped on the cheek of deceased, when questioned the same by CW1 and deceased, suddenly accused No.1 held the collar of the deceased and stabbed the deceased with M.O.1 iron knife. With that being CW1 lodged Ex.P5 complaint at before PW7 Rajshekar B Saganur. On virtue of Ex.P5 complaint PW7 registered the case under a crime No.206/2021 for the offence punishable U/s 341, 302, 323 r/w 149 IPC and PW7 sent Ex.P12 FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. The signature of PW7 available at in Ex.P5 marked at Ex.P5(b) and signature at Ex.P12 marked at Ex.P12(a). No doubt the defence have take their own defence in disputing the theory of prosecution case with respect to launching of the case and in corporation of the various sections of the offence in the FIR, along with language of CW1. According to the defence CW1 is a man who do not know the Kannada language and it accordingly it would not possible to filed Ex.P5 complaint at in the Kannada language. Further, according to defence the police have registered a case in against to the unknown persons and submitted the Ex.P12 FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate U/s 341, 302, 323 r/w 149 of IPC. Despite the investigating officer filed the charge sheet in against accused Nos.1 and 2 only for the offence punishable U/s 323, 302, 341 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Hence according to the defence there is a lack in part of the prosecution, the same such of the lack in the prosecution ought to be extend to the innocent accused. But, if it go through the deposition of PW7 along with PW4 complainant, though with respect to the fact of language PW4 admitted in his cross examination that he do not know read and write Kannada language, where as in the cross examination itself, PW7 voluntarily stated that he know the language of Hindi and he translated the averments of complaint from Hindi language to Kannada language, to PW4 complainant. The same also could be seen from the bottom of Ex.P5 complaint. Where at the bottom of the Ex.P5 complaint, that it could be seen PW7 make a shara with respect transalation of the language from Hindi to Kannada. To deny such of the shara admittedly no cross examination done by the accused. further in to that respect even no single suggestion made by the accused to PW7. With that being one prudent man could say the contention of the accused with respect to non-knowing of language to PW4 complainant not holds any of the water. With this being of observation one prudent man could say, PW4 complainant who being known and perused crime at first instance that he filed the Ex.P5 complaint.

C. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Section 302 read with 34 Murder Common intention Testimony of witness - If there is contradiction of statement of a witness on any material point, that is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony of such witness.

27. Important to note under criminal law jurisprudence the FIR is neither substantive piece of evidence nor encyclopedia. Further, it also important to note test identification parade too not be a substantive piece of evidence. Based on the same settle principles of law, the present controversy taken into my consideration. If it assimilated the controversy in the light of all judgments herein above quoted, the deposition of PW1 and PW2 and PW4 have taken for my consideration. Admittedly the case registered in against accused based on the direct evidence. The prosecution examined the PW1 and PW2 as eye witness to the incident. The deposition of PW1 and PW2 have consistently evidence availability of accused Nos.1 and 2, PW1 and PW2 as well as PW4 complainant and deceased at in the particular place, date and time. Further deposition of PW1 and PW2 have categorically available in against to accused Nos.1 and 2 with respect to wrongful restrainment of PW4, deceased Boopat Singh Gond as well as PW1 and PW2. Further from the deposition of PW1 and PW2 it could also evidence accused No.2 slapped on the cheek of deceased and accused No.1 stabbed the deceased with M.O.1 iron knife. Also if once go through the deposition of PW1 and PW2, wherein the deposition of PW1 and PW2, PW1 and PW2 consistently deposed the existence, availability of both accused and PW4 complainant and deceased at in the particular place, date and time. As such the core substance wrongfully restrained PW4 complainant and deceased, to furtherance of their common intention to committed the murder of deceased, accused No.2 slapped on the cheek of deceased and accused No.1 stabbed the deceased with intention of causing death of the human being. The same such of case theory of the prosecution have also could be seen from the deposition of PW4 complainant. From such of the corroborated testimony of eye witnesses PW1 and PW2 and PW4 one could adjudged the accused have committed the present offence to their furtherance of the common intention. To deny such of the case of prosecution, accused Nos.1 and 2 have no such of the intention to killed deceased, no probable defence of the accused elicited either at through the mouth of PW1 and PW2 or at through the mouth of PW4. In its contrary, if it go through the cross examination portion of PW1, in the cross examination of PW1 the accused himself elicited at through the mouth of PW1 and PW2 as to how know about accused No.1 prior to the date of incident. Further, even if it go through the same cross examination portion of PW1 and PW2, the accused counsel he also go one extent to suggest the suggestion to PW1, as PW1 known accused No.1 and on the reason of enmity in between accused No.1 and PW1, PW1 deposed false evidence in against the accused No.1. But, for what reason enmity has been grown up in between PW1 and accused No.1, have not been demonstrated by the defence. With that being the defence of the accused rest in the case record as self surviving. On the other hand at in the defence itself that it can saw the answer to the question put by the defence, with respect to well knowness of the accused to PW1 and PW2 and in respect to the fact PW1 and PW2 have directly saw the act of accused with the help of street light as per Ex.P4(a). Further the same are all the kind of defence of the accused have make it to decline to holds the water on defence, in the light of judgment relied by the prosecution. Hence, the above all the argument of accused not holds any of the water. Further, the judgment relied by the accused have it make it differentiated with the facts and circumstance of the present case, the same are all the judgments have also not come to aid of the defence. Therefore with due respect upon the same judgments, ratio of the same judgments are not applied to the case on hand. On the other hand, from the deposition of PW1, PW2 and PW4 have it to be seen the case of prosecution and same such of the prosecution case have been inspired the confidence from the deposition of PW1, PW2 and PW4. As the testimony of PW1 and PW2 eye witnesses to the incident have corroborated the testimony of PW4 complainant the same corroborated testimony un-hearingly point out the commission of the offence by accused Nos.1 and 2. The same such of the corroborated testimony available in the case record as unshaken, make it to believe the case of prosecution by holding the prosecution have proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

29. As to know the fact whether the accused No.1 and 2 have the common intention in furtherance to commit the murder of deceased, again the deposition of eye witness and complainant have take its own meaning.

According to the prosecution case, accused No.1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention, accused No.2 slapped on the cheek of the deceased and on resist the same by deceased and CW-4 complainant, accused No.1 stabbed the deceased by means of MO-1. The same set of theory of the prosecution could also be seen from the deposition of eye witness PW1 and PW2 and from the deposition of complainant PW4. The same testimony of eye witness of the incident viz., PW1 and PW2 and the testimony of CW4 complainant rest in the case record as unshaken in despite of the lengthy cross examination by the accused. Further, even it gone through the cross examination portion of eye witness viz., PW1 and PW2 and testimony of PW4 complainant, no probable defence of the accused elicited, i.e., no accused have not been available at in the place of incident at on the particular date and time and accused have not committed any of the offence as alleged. This being of availability of the material evidence on record, one prudent man could say the prosecution have proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, as to make testified have the common intention to committed the crime, again the deposition eye witness viz., PW1 and PW2 and complainant PW4 have take its own meaning. From the deposition of eye witness PW1 and PW2 and the deposition of complainant PW4 as it could be consistently seen both accused No.1 and 2 wrongfully restrained deceased and PW4 complainant as well as PW1 and PW2 in that particular place, time and date. Further, from the deposition of eye witness PW1 and PW2 and complainant PW4 it could also be consistently seen, accused No.2 slapped on the cheek of deceased Boopat Singh Gond. The same such of consistent evidence placed by the prosecution at through eye witness PW1 and PW2 and complainant PW4 have make it inspire the confidence over the case of prosecution without of any single doubt. Further, if suppose no such of the prior meeting in between accused Nos.1 and 2 to committed an offence, then how accused No.2 slapped the deceased and he called to his co-accused as "ಏ ವಿಷ್ಣು ಏನು ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೀಯ" and wrongfully restrained the deceased. The same such of the conjointness act of the accused No.2 have not been segregated from the charge made in against accused No.1, by eliciting any of the material evidence at through the any of prosecution witness. With this being of observation, that I common intention have been shared among themselves for the purpose to committed the criminal act. With this being of reason the prosecution have successfully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt accused Nos.1 and 2 have the common intention to commit the crime and with such of the common intention accused Nos.1 and 2 have conjointly committed the murder of deceased Boopat Singh Gond. From the above all observation that I am of the view the prosecution prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the death of deceased Boopat Singh Gond is homicidal and such of the homicidal death tant amount to an murder and such of the murder inflicted by accused Nos.1 and 2 by sharing their common intention among themselves. Accordingly, I answered Points No.1 to 3 in the Affirmative.