Court No. - 5
Judgment Reserved on 3.2.2018 Judgment Delivered on 22.2.2018 Case :- JAIL APPEAL No. - 231 of 2011 Appellant :- Shaitan Singh Respondent :- State Counsel for Appellant :- From Jail Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Rajiv Lochan Mehrotra,J.
(1) For quashing the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3 Badaun in S.T. No. 1014 of 2008 thereby convicting the appellant for life imprisonment under Section 304 I.P.C. and also in S.T. No. 1015 of 2008 for one year rigorous imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 4/25 Arms Act the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
(2) The brief facts of the case are that on 31.3.2008, Smt. Harkha Devi handed over a written report to the in-charge police station Mujaria with the averments therein that on the same day at about 6.00 PM her husband Suresh after finishing the routine work in the agriculture fields, was returning home. Her son Shaitan Singh, who is an ill natured and drug addict man and also does not work anywhere, met his father on the way. At that time Shaitan Singh was having a Farsa in his hand. Suresh scolded him and asked as to where was he going. At this Shaitan Singh started abusing his father-Suresh and when Suresh objected, Saitan Singh instantly attacked him with the Farsa. The incident was witnessed by the complainant-Harkha Devi and her daughter-Sangeeta who were also on the way to their home. Both of them tried to defend Suresh in which they also received some injuries. Suresh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') succumbed to these injuries on the spot.
(3) On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was lodged at about 7.05 PM on 31.03.2008. Relevant entries were made in the registers and thereafter investigation came into motion. The proceedings with regard to the inquest memo of the deceased were performed and the inquest memo was prepared on the same day. Autopsy on the body of the deceased was performed on 1st April 2008 at 1.30 PM and eight incised wounds were observed on his body, out of which three were on the skull, one was on the forehead, one was on the scapula while rest were on his arms. The cause of his death, as opined by the doctor, was shock and hommerage as a result of anti mortem injuries. The accused was arrested on 2.4.2008 alongwith the incriminating weapon i.e. Farsa. During the investigation samples of plain and blood stained soil was collected by the Investigating Officer. The blood stained clothes of the deceased, samples of soils so collected as well as the Farsa were forwarded to the forensic lab for chemical examination. Human blood on all these articles was observed by the lab. After collecting the evidence the Investigating Officer reached on the conclusion that the accused Shaitan Singh was guilty of the offences under Section 304 I.P.C. and 4/25 Arms Act, therefore, chargesheet was submitted against him.
(4) Charge was framed against the accused under Section 304 IPC and Section 4/24 Arms Act. Accused-appellant denied it and claimed trial.
(5) In support of the charge, prosecution examined PW-1-Harkha Devi (complainant) and PW-2 Sangeeta – daughter of the deceased as witnesses of facts. PW-3 S.I. Shivshankar, PW-6 Rajendra Prasad Awasthi and PW-8, Rajendra Prasad investigated the matter in phases. PW-4 – constable Ram Autar lodged the FIR under Section 304 I.P.C. and made its entry in the G.D while PW-5 constable Jagat Singh lodged the FIR against the appellant under Section 25 Arms Act in the light of the recovery memo of farsa prepared by the Investigating Officer during the arrest of the accused and made its entry into the G.D. PW-7. Dr. J.L. Gupta conducted the postmortem of the deceased.
(6) Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he said that a false case has been initiated against him on account of enmity. Moreover, his mother is having illicit relations with his uncle on which the appellant and the deceased had objection. On account of it the deceased was murdered by the complainant with the aid of said uncle of the appellant and he was falsely implicated with the intent so that the said story may not be made public.
(7) In the present case, the complainant is mother of the accused while the deceased is his father. Sangeeta, the real sister of the appellant is also a witness against him. The occurrence as alleged in the FIR took place at 6.00 PM on the last day of March while report was lodged just after an hour i.e. at 7.05 PM. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is about three and a half kilometre. PW-7 Dr. J.L. Gupta in his statement before the court has also admitted that the injuries sustained by the deceased might have been inflicted at 6.00 PM on 31.3.2008. On a query made from the side of the defence, the witness replied that a variation of six hours on either side with regard to the duration of the injuries is always possible and these injuries might have been inflicted between 9.00 to 10.00 PM also. It is clearly deposed by this witness that the deceased had taken his meal three to four hours before his death. As per prosecution story the deceased was coming back from the fields after irrigating the crops and routine labour work. Therefore, as per normal practice of labours the possibility of his taking the meal in between one to two PM can not be ruled out. This presumption also supports the time of occurrence of the incident as alleged in the FIR.
(8) As per evidence of PW-1 Harkha Devi (complainant) the deceased had often scolded the appellant on account of his bad habits. It is categorically said by this witness that the appellant is a drug addict and ill mannered person who used to quarrel with other family members in inebriated condition. At the time of the occurrence the appellant was being scolded by the deceased for the abovesaid reasons at which he hurled abuses on his father and thereafter assaulted him with the help of Farsa. It is specifically admitted by this witness that on the date of occurrence, none of her family member had enmity with any of the villager. The mental abnormality of the appellant has specifically been denied by this witness and no such evidence could have been adduced from the side of the appellant also to prove that he is a man of either unsound mind or of any abnormality. In cross examination also the witness said that at least eight to ten blows of Farsa were hit on the body of the deceased including the head. It was suggested by the defence to the witness that these injuries were the result of his coming down under the wheel of the bullock cart. However, the said suggestion was turned down by the witness.
(9) PW-2 Sangeeta daughter of the deceased, is also said to be an eye witness of the occurrence. Though in the cross examination this witness at one stage has admitted that while at home she received the information of death of her father for the first time through a boy whose name she could not remember. She was also informed by the messenger that the accused has cut down her father. The examination in chief of this witness was recorded on 6.11.2008 while she was cross examined on 21.1.2009 i.e. after a span of more than two and a half months. This witness could not reply whether the deceased had irrigated the agricultural fields of some other persons also on the date of the occurrence. She could not tell the time at which the tube-well became operative on the date of the occurrence because she did not accompany her father. She further deposed that during the course of the occurrence she also received twenty to twenty five injures on her body. A suggestion with regard to illicit relations between complainant and her Devar was given to this witness which was firmly denied by her. It is further suggested that the deceased was unhappy with with the above said illicit relations and therefore he started selling his entire property and for this reason he was killed by the complainant herself with the help of her Devar. The said suggestion was also denied by the witness.
(10) No such evidence could have been adduced from the side of the defence to prove above said suggestions. The accused could have filed the copies of the sale-deeds executed by the deceased if any. Moreover, he could have examined some witnesses in support of the allegation of illicit relations which he did not.
(11) If for the sake of argument it is presumed that PW-2 Sangeeta was not present on the spot or she was not an eyewitness even then the statement of complainant the mother of the accused is sufficient to prove the charge against appellant. If mother comes in the witness box and says that it is her son who has killed his father, in that event the evidence of mother can not be disbelieved for the reasons given by the appellant in the instant case. How a mother can depose false evidence against her own son. Moreover, the medical evidence also corroborates the ocular evidence available on the record. Receiving injuries on coming down under the wheel of a cart could not be substantiated by the medical evidence. Apart from it, human blood was also found on the Farsa used in the said occurrence. The Investigation of the case and proceedings relating to inquest memo were started at 8.30 PM and were over at 10.05 PM meaning thereby the suggestion given by the appellant to the doctor regarding the duration of these injuries in between 9.00 to 10.00 PM does not appear correct as per documentary evidence available on record. The said bullock cart on which the deceased was returning back at the time of the occurrence was found standing on the spot with an engine pumping set over it. The dead body of the deceased was also lying over the said cart during the inquest proceedings. PW-3 S.I. Shivshankar reached on the spot at about 8.00 PM on the same day alongwith Jaipal, the scribe of the complaint (Exhibit Ka-1) and the complainant. Apart from it, PW-4 constable Ramautar who lodged the report in the light of the complaint given by the complainant said in his evidence that the complainant reached at the police station at about 7.05 PM and within 15 minutes the report was lodged.
(12) PW-6 S.O. Rajendra Prasad Awasthi is one of the Investigating Officer in the matter who on 2.4.2008 on the information of the informer arrested the accused at about 4.45 PM while sleeping in a hut at Gram Kattaia, Farsa used in the crime was also recovered from his possession of which recovery memo was prepared on the spot. He tried but failed to arrange a public witness during these proceedings. This witness was cross examined by the accused on the point of the recovery but no such fact could be elicited in his evidence which may doubt his version. Moreover as per forensic lab report, human blood stains were also found on the Farsa. Therefore, the recovery of Farsa does not become doubtful.
(13) On the basis of above discussion it is clear that the prosecution has succeeded to prove the charge against the appellant. The evidence of PW-1 Harkha Devi (mother of the appellant) also corroborates the documentary evidence available on record. The appellant could not establish any enmity with the eye witnesses or his other family members. No proof regarding the allegation of illicit relations could have been produced by the appellant. It has also been established that the injuries sustained by the injured were not the result of his coming down under the wheel of the bullock cart-as suggested by the appellant. Hence there appears no reason to interfere with the finding and sentence awarded by learned lower court.
(14) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials brought on record, both oral and documentary, we find that the impugned judgment and order of sentence requires no interference.
(15) In the result, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date: 22.2.2018 BKM/-