Chandrabhan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan

Goverdhan Bardhar, J

Challenge in the instant criminal appeal has been made by the appellant to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.4.2016 passed by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur [for short 'the learned trial Court'] in Sessions Case No.153/2012, State of Rajasthan Vs. Chandrabhan Singh, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- U/s.302 IPC:

Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

Facts of the case in nutshell are that complainant Pritam Singh (PW-1) submitted a written report (Ex-P1) on 12.4.2012 to the SHO, Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Bharatpur to the effect that on 12.4.2012 at about 12:00 a.m. he left the home for Jaipur. At about 11:30 a.m. when he reached Mahwa his cousin brother Vinayveer made a telephonic call and told him regarding murder of his daughter Bhavna by slitting her neck with sharp edged weapon. He immediately returned to his village and after seeing the dead body of Bhavna he found that some unknown culprit had slit the neck of Bhavna from different places and she sustained injuries on her hands and legs. The dead body of Bhavna was lying in the room fully smeared with blood.

On the basis of aforesaid written report (Ex.P1), FIR No.100/2012 was registered for the offence under section 302 IPC. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Learned trial court framed charge against the accusedappellant for the aforesaid offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of twenty two witnesses and thirty eight documents were got exhibited. Thereafter, the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence the accused appellant did not produce any witness but exhibited four documents. The appellant aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court dated 30.4.2016 has preferred this criminal appeal.

Learned counsel for the accused appellant has argued that complainant Pritam Singh (PW1), father of the deceased deposed in cross-examination that he did not see anyone in committing murder of his daughter. PW-9 Krishan Pal Singh, brother of the deceased deposed in cross-examination that he did not see Subhash, Chandan Singh and Natwar Singh in the village till funeral of Bhavna. They went to Bharatpur and returned from there in the evening. Pw-10 Mamta, wife of younger brother of complainant, PW-11 Nisha and PW-12 Subhash did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. There is no eye-witness of the occurrence. The circumstances which have been narrated by the prosecution have not been proved. As per medical evidence the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by sharp edged weapon, whereas, the knife which has been recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant has three edges. Thus, it is clear that the injuries found on the body of Bhavna could not be inflicted by the knife which is alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accusedappellant.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court.

The prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. In the FIR (Ex.P1) it is stated that victim died due to injuries inflicted on her neck by sharp edged weapon. The prosecution has brought on record following circumstances against the accused:-

(I) Frequent visits of accused-appellant at the home of the complainant.

(ii) The accused was seen entering in the house of the complainant soon before the incident.

(iii) The accused was seen jumping the wall of backyard for exit and thereafter running away from the house of the complainant.

(iv) Recovery of blood-stained knife and clothes at the instance of accused-appellant.

The prosecution produced Harpal Singh as PW5-brother of deceased Bhavna, Smt. Pooran Dei as PW6-mother of deceased Bhavna, Vinayveer as PW8 and Krishanpal Singh as PW9. These witnesses in their testimony specifically deposed that the accused appellant was treated as family member and for the last 3-4 years he used to visit frequently at the house of the complainant and like other family members used to help the complainant.

The accused appellant was seen entering in the house of the complainant soon before the incident. In connection with this fact, the prosecution produced Chandan Singh Jat as PW2 and Natwar Singh @ Nattu as PW3.

PW2-Chandan Singh deposed that on 12.04.2012 he went from Bharatpur to his village and he was returning from the fields after cutting the crop. At about 11-11:30 O'clock when he and Natwar were at the distance of about one field, he saw Chandrabhan jumping the wall of backyard for exit and running away from the house of the complainant. Chandrabhan Singh was wearing grey colour pent and shirt. On the pent and shirt there were spots. At about 7:30-8:00 P.M. when he reached at his house situated in Subhash Nagar then his family members told him that Pritam's daughter has been murdered. On the next day he went to the house of Pritam Singh for condolence on sad demise of Pritam's daughter. Then he narrated about the action of the appellant to complainant Pritam (PW1). The statement of this witness has been corroborated by PW7- Natwar.

In connection with recovery of bloodstained knife and clothes etc. at the instance of accused appellant, the material witnesses produced by the prosecution are complainant Pitam Singh (PW1), Natwar Singh (PW7), Veerbala (PW13), Balwar Singh (PW21). Complainant Pitam Singh (PW1) deposed that the police prepared the site-map (Ex.P14) of recovery place from where pent and shirt (Ex.P13) and the knife (Ex.P15) of accused appellant were recovered. Vide Ex.P17, one pair of slippers and silver wire were also recovered at the instance of accused appellant. The statement of PW1 has been corroborated by Natwar Singh (PW7), Veerbala (PW13), Balwar Singh (PW21).

In relation to the enmity between the deceased and the accused appellant, the prosecution produced Smt. Pooran Dei as PW6, who is mother of deceased Bhawna. She admitted in her cross-examination that 10-15 days prior to the alleged incident, hot words were exchanged on mobile in between accused appellant and deceased Bhavna and deceased Bhavna abused in filthy language to Chandrabhan (accused appellant) and said not to come to the house of her father.

PW1-Pitam Singh deposed that after cremation of his daughter he was informed by his cousin brother Subhash that he saw Chandrabhan entering in the house. In the condolence meeting on said demise of his daughter Chandan Singh and Natwar Singh @ Natti told him that on the fateful day they saw Chandrabhan Gadariya jumping the wall for exit from his house. Thereafter, he stated about this fact to the police. He had a doubt that Chandrabhan has committed murder of his daughter. Initially, he lodged FIR (Ex.P1) and afterwards he lodged FIR (Ex.P2) by naming Chandrabhan as an accused. Another report is Ex.P3 on which A to B portion there were his signatures.

PW6-Smt. Pooran Dei, mother of deceased daughter deposed that she was told by her neighbour Subhash that Chandrabhan ran away towards forest after jumping the backside wall of the house and his clothes were stained with blood.

PW-17 deposed that on 12.4.2012 he was posted as medical jurist in R.B.M. Hospital, Bharatpur. The autopsy (Ex.P29) on the dead body of deceased Ku.Bhavna was conducted. During the course of autopsy he found following ante-mortem injuries on the person of deceased:-

Incised wound 12 X 3 cm X bone deep on left side of neck parallel to the mandible extending from left year to chin with soft blood clots.

Incised wound 10 X 2.5 cm X trachea deep with fine blood mixed froths.

Incised wound 4 X 1.5 cm X M.D. on the left lateral side of nec oligum upper part with soft blood clots.

Incised wound 4 X 1.5 cm X M.D. on the left lateral side of neck m.1/3 oblique with soft blood clots.

Incised wound 3 X 1.5 cm X M.D. in the right lateral side of neck m.1/3 with soft blood clots.

Incised wound 5 X 3 cm X M.D. on the right lateral side of nect L1/3 with cutting larges vessels and soft blood clots.

LW 3 X 1.5 cm X bone deep on the higher surface of right finger M1/3.

Incised wound 3 X 0.5 cm X skin deep on right dorsum of left forearm.

Incised wound 2 X 1.0 cm X MD on the dorsum of left hand M1/3 with soft clost.

Incised wound 3 X 1 cm X MD on the right lateral side of left forearm U1/3.

Incised wound 1 X 0.5 cm X MD on the top of left shoulder.

Incised wound 6 X 1.5 cm X MD on the left forearm L1/3 finger surface.

Incised wound 1.0 X 0.5 cm X MD on the left forearm L1/3 just above the wrist.

Incised wound 5 X 1.5 cm X MD on the left thumb medial surface.

The cause of death was shock as the result of multiple injuries leading excessive bleeding which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Other than this witness the Members of the Medical Board were Dr. Vivek Bharadwaj, Dr. Suresh Garg and Dr. Akhilesh Yadav.

FSL report is (Ex.P1). Ex.P1 (FSL report) clearly indicates that there was human blood on the clothes of the accused appellant and the knife recovered at his instance.

PW9-Krishanpal Singh, son of complainant and brother of deceased Bhavna deposed that Chandrabhan for the last more than 3-4 years regularly used to come their house everyday. On 31.12.2011 on the eve of retirement of his uncle (Tauji), in the evening he saw one steel knife of black colour with its cover in the hand of Chandrabhan Singh and he was tying the same under the knee and he (Chandrabhan Singh) stated that he had purchased the same from exhibition (Numaish). Chandrabhan Singh used to talk to his sister secretly. Chandrabhan won faith of all his family members and his family members were not having any doubt about his integrity. Thus, he committed breach of trust with the family. His elder sister Bhavna (now deceased) used to tell that Chandrabhan is not a good boy.

PW21-Balveer Singh deposed that on 12.04.2012 he was posted as Sub Inspector in Police Station Udhyog Nagar. On that day at 2:30 PM, in village Sahanwali, Pritam Singh s/o Ramcharan Singh Jat (PW1) submitted a written report in connection with murder of his daughter Bhavna which is Ex.P1. On the next day i.e. on 13.04.2012 complainant Pritam Singh submitted a supplementary report at Police Station which is Ex.P3. This witness further deposed that during the course of investigation accused Chandrabhan Singh suffered disclosure statements on 28.04.2012 for recovery of the knife, on 01.05.2012 for recovery of pent, shirt and slippers and on 02.05.2012 for recovery of Tshirt and Scarf, which were Ex.P32, Ex.P33, Ex.P34 and P35 respectively.

The incident took place on 12.04.2012 in between 10:30 to 11:30 AM. PW1-Pritam Singh, PW5-Harpal Singh, PW6-Pooran Dei and PW9-Krishan Pal Singh deposed that at the time of incident deceased Bhawna was alone at home.

PW2- Chandan Singh and PW7-Natwar deposed that at about 11:30 AM when they were coming from fields and at a distance of about one field, they saw Chandrabhan jumping the boundary wall of the house of complainant for exit and run away towards cremation ground.

In view of above, we find that the prosecution has been successful in proving guilt of the accused-appellant, by adducing cogent and reliable evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, from the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, the guilt of the accused-appellant with regard to the commission of crime in-question stands duly established.

In the result, the criminal appeal filed by the accused appellants is bereft of merit and accordingly stand dismissed. The Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.4.2016 passed by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur, in Sessions Case No.153/2012, State of Rajasthan Vs. Chandrabhan Singh, are maintained.