Jitendra and Others vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—In the instant case, on the night of 11th of March, 2004 at about 10:30 P.M. the appellant, Jitendra caused injuries to Bihari Lal, the father of the complainant and Niwas Bavri. Occurrence had taken place in the house of Niwas Bavri (Ramniwas PW-4). Bihari Lal, father of complainant, died as a result of injuries caused with sword by the appellant, Jitendra. Niwas Bavri @ Ramniwas (PW-4) suffered serious injuries falling within the ambit of Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Immediately, after the occurrence, Jitendra, appellant had chased Smt. Chauthi Devi, the wife of Niwas Bavri (Ramniwas PW-4) and had caused her murder.

In the present case, two separate First Information Reports were registered; and two separate cases, being Special Case Nos. 24/2004 and 38/2004 respectively were filed by the prosecution. However, the trial Court clubbed both the cases and decided the same by a common judgment.

Vide its impugned judgment dated 20.12.2006, the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Cases, Sikar, convicted the appellant, in Special Case No. 24/2004, Jitendra for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for causing murder of Bihari Lal and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

The trial Judge also convicted appellant, Jitendra for offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. for committing murderous assaults on the person of Niwas Bavri @ Ramniwas (PW-4) and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.

In case Sessions Case No. 24/2004, the trial Court acquitted the appellants, namely Nemichand and Killo @ Ravi for offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 324/34 I.P.C.; and convicted them only for offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment.

All the appellants were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3(11)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

To assail his conviction and sentence on above counts, the appellant, Jitendra has instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 31/2007, under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

To assail the acquittal of the appellants, namely Nemichand and Killo @ Ravi, for offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(11)(5) of the of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the State of Rajasthan has preferred D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal bearing No. 162 of 2012.

The State of Rajasthan has also preferred D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal bearing No. 163/2012 to assail the acquittal of the appellant, Jitendra for offence punishable under Section 3(11)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

In Sessions Case No. 38/2004, the appellant Jitendra was also convicted for causing murder of Smt. Chauthi Devi, the wife of Niwas Bavri @ Ramniwas (PW-) for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

The trial Court ordered that sentences awarded upon appellant, Jitendra, in Sessions Case No. 24/2004 and 38/2004 respectively shall run concurrently.

To assail his conviction and sentence awarded for causing murder of Smt. Chauthi Devi, appellant, Jitendra has preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 32/2007.

The trial Court, even though two separate charge-sheets were filed, considering the occurrence had taken place on the same day and in quick succession had clubbed both the cases and has delivered one judgment.

Since no separate trial was conducted and the witnesses were examined in one trial, no question of prejudice was raised by the accused before the trial Court seeking separate trial and separate judgment.

Furthermore, we are of the view that since at the first opportunity, objection was not raised by the accused seeking separate trial, it is, too, late in the day to remit the matter for separate trial, as the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, Jitendra has failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused to the appellant.

Therefore, we shall also decide the afore-quoted appeals, as well as, applications for grant of leave to appeal together.

Pratap (PW-11) on 11.03.2004 had presented written-report (Exhibit-P/19) before Station House Officer, Kotwali, Sikar. On the basis of above said written-report, a formal First Information Report bearing No. 105/2004, (Exhibit-P/20) was registered at Police Station, Kotwali, District Sikar.

The written-report, (Exhibit-P/19), when translated into English reads as under:--

"To,

The Station House Officer, Kotwali, Sikar.

Subject : For lodging report for murder caused by giving injuries.

Sir,

In the above noted subject, it is submitted that on 11.03.2004 at about 10:30 P.M., on hearing noise of the quarrel/fight, my father Bihari Lal from his house went to the house of Niwas Bavri. I, Mohan Rathore and Narayan also followed our father to the house of Niwas Bavri. On reaching there, they saw that Jitendra, Nemichand, Kailash and his relative Killo were quarreling with Niwas Bavari. When my father intervened, then Jitendra gave many blows with sword and caused injuries to my father and Niwas Bavri. Both become unconscious and fell at the spot. Smt. Chauthi Devi wife of Niwas Bavri due to fear, ran away from the house. Accused also ran away from the spot. Thereafter, I and my companions brought my father Bihari Lal and Niwas Bavri to Shri Kalyan Hospital, where Doctor declared my father as dead. I am presenting above report and request is made that case be registered against the assailants and the legal action be taken.

Signature Pratap S/o. Biharilal"

On 12.03.2004 Pooja (PW-5), daughter of Niwas Bavri @ Ramniwas (PW-4), submitted a written-report (Exhibit-P/12) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Sikar and also made a request for registration of case for murder of her mother Smt. Chauthi Devi.

On the basis of written-report (Exhibit-P/12), a criminal case bearing, First Information Report bearing No. 106/2004, dated 11.03.2004 (Exhibit-P/21), was registered at Police Station, Kotwali Sikar.

The said written-report, (Exhibit-P/12), when translated into English reads as under:--

"To,

The Station House Officer, Police Station, Kotwali, Sikar.

Subject : For registration of case.

Sir,

It is submitted that yesterday i.e. on 11.03.2004 in the night, Jitendra Siklikar along with his companions came to our house at Kachi Basti Ward No. 17 and caused injuries to my father, Niwas Bavri; and Bihari Lal. We had taken them to the hospital at Sikar. When we returned home, our mother was not found in the house. I and my sister searched for my mother. Then people told us that Jitendra armed with sword ran after and chased my mother and they were running towards forest. We searched for her towards the land of the forest. In the morning at 06:30 A.M. my mother was found in dead condition. Therefore, by presenting above report, it is requested that the case be registered and legal action be taken.

Applicant Pooja daughter of Niwas Bavri"

The trial Judge charged the appellants, namely Jitendra, Nemichand and Killo @ Ravi for offence punishable under Sections 323 and 324/34 I.P.C.

The trial Judge also charged appellant, Jitendra for causing murder of Bihari Lal in the house of Niwas Bavri @ Ramniwas (PW-4) for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The trial Court had also charged the appellant for causing injuries to Niwas Bavri @ Ramniwas (PW-4) for offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.

Other accused were charged with the aid of Section 302/34 I.P.C. for causing injuries to Niwas Bavri @ Ramniwas (PW-4). All accused were also charged for offence under Section 3(11)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

We may note here the peculiar feature of the case that in both the written-reports i.e. Exhibit-P/19 and Exhibit-P/12) respectively, no overt role has been assigned to appellants, Nemichand S/o. Balaji, Killo @ Ravi S/o. Irani, however, their presence at the spot has been noted but they have not been assigned any injury, to anybody.

Prosecution commenced its evidence.

The first informant, Pratap (PW-11) S/o. deceased -Bihari Lal, Pooja (PW-5) daughter of deceased - Smt. Chauthi Devi, Narayan (PW-12) and Ramniwas (PW-4), injured appeared as eye-witnesses.

Before we take note of evidence of the eyewitnesses, it is necessary for us to notice the medico-legal evidence.

Dr. G.R. Tanwar (PW-7) stated that on 11.03.2004 at 11:00 P.M. he had examined Ramniwas S/o. Malaram, (PW-4) aged about forty years and as per injury report (Exhibit-P/14) he had found the following injuries on his person:--

This witness further stated that on 12.03.2004 at 01:15 P.M. he had conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Bihari Lal; and as per the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/15) he had found the following injuries on the person of Bihari Lal:--

"1. Incised wound 4x2 cm x deep in thoracic cavity right side near sternum at 5th inter coastal space

Incised wound transverse 8x2x1 cm at right cheek

Abrasion 3 x2 cm on left elbow

Bruise 8x2 cm on left lumber region."

On internal examination, fractures of 5th and 6th ribs on the right side of the chest were found, and right lung had collapsed due to incised wound at middle lobe.

As per opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock due to excessive hemorrhage and injury to lung.

On the same day, doctor had also conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Smt. Chauthi Devi; and as per Post Mortem Report, (Exhibit-P/16) he had found the following injuries on her person:--

"1. Incised wound anterior postal 8x2x1 1/2 cm at scalp left parietal region.

Incised wound oblique 3x1 cm x deep in abdomen cavity at left iliac fossa of abdomen.

Incised wound oblique 3x1 cm x deep in abdomen cavity below umbilicus at abdomen left side.

Abrasions 6x3 cm at left arm

Incised wound 1 1/2 x 1x1/2 cm at base of left thumb - upper part missing."

As per opinion of the doctor, there was a fracture of left parietal bone and clotted blood was present below the right parietal lock. Incised injuries were also present on intestine.

As per opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of Smt. Chauthi Devi was shock due to excessive hemorrhage.

Ramniwas (PW-4), injured eye-witness stated that he was residing in Kachi Basti from last ten/twelve years. On the day of occurrence, at about 10:30 P.M. he was sitting beneath the chhapar of his house. His wife Smt. Chauthi Devi was cooking meals. His daughters Pooja and Bhagwati; and Lalli, the wife of brother were also sitting inside the room. Then Jitendra, Nemichand, Kailash and Killo came. Jitendra was armed with sword. Others were empty handed. All the four accused gave him slaps and fist blows. On hearing his noise, neighbour Bihari Lal, was attracted at the spot. Bihari Lal objected to the beating caused to Ramniwas (PW-4). Jitendra, Kailash, Killo and Nemichand asked him to go away, otherwise, they will kill him. Bihari Lal stepped forward. Then, Jitendra caused sword blow on the chest and neck of Bihari Lal. He fell at the spot. Thereafter, Jitendra also gave blows of sword on his head, mouth and finger. He also fell at the spot. Mohan, Pratap and Narayan, who had followed Bihari Lal came forward on seeing them, accused ran away from the spot. The wife of this witness who was cooking meals also ran away. Accused also chased her. The witness along with Bihari Lal were brought to the hospital. This witness stated that Bihari Lal and his wife Smt. Chauthi Devi have been murdered. Lastly, this witness stated that they have a land dispute with the accused.

In cross-examination, this witness was confronted with his previous statement (Exhibit-D/2), wherein only it was recorded that Jitendra came and the presence of Nemichand, Kailash and Killo was not recorded. The witness could not explain as to why their presence has not been recorded.

It will be apposite to reproduce here the following portion of the statement of the witness, in the cross-examination:--

Pooja, daughter of Ramniwas (PW-4) appeared as PW-5. She stated that she was sitting inside the room along with her aunt Lalli, sister Bhagwati and Sanju. Her mother Smt. Chauthi Devi was cooking meals. Then Nemichand, Jitendra, Trilok and Kailash came. Jitendra was armed with sword. Others were empty handed. They started giving abuses to her father and mother. Then Bihari Lal came there and objected to the abuses given by the accused. Then Jitendra caused injuries with the sword on the person of Bihari Lal. Other accused gave fist and kick blows. They also caused injuries to her father. Her mother ran away towards the jungle and the accused also chased her.

It is to be noted here that in the cross-examination of this witness she was confronted with her previous statement (Exhibit-D/3) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Police, wherein she had not named Nemichand, Trilok and Kailash. This witness has not stated that they have given kick and fist blows. Lastly, this witness stated that she has not reported to the Police that Nemichand and Kailash had also followed her mother..

In examination-in-a-chief, this witness stated that the dead-body of her mother was found in the jungle, which was on the other side of Kachi Basti. Her mother had suffered injuries in the head, abdomen and chest. Her thumb was also chopped.

Smt. Lali (PW-6), stated that accused Jitendra armed with sword and caused injuries to Bihari Lal and his Jeth, elder brother of her husband. In the morning, dead-body of Smt. Chauthi Devi was found in the jungle. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.

Pratap (PW-11) stated that on the day of occurrence at about 09:30 P.M. he was present at the house. He heard noise coming from the house of Ramniwas (PW-4). Then, his father went towards the house of Ramniwas. He along with Mohan and Narayan (PW-12) also followed his father. They saw that in the house of Ramniwas, Jitendra, Nemichand, Kailash and Killo were causing injuries to Ramniwas. Jitendra was armed with sword. Others were empty handed. His father had objected to the abuses and beating given by the accused to Ramniwas. Upon which, Jitendra asked him to leave the spot and when he intervened, Jitendra caused injuries with sword to his father. Nemichand, Kailash and Killo also gave fist blows to his father. This witness was confronted with his previous statement, Exhibit-D/4, wherein fact that Nemichand and Killa caused injuries with fist blow is not mentioned.

Narayan (PW-12) has also reiterated as to what was stated by Pratap (PW-11). He corroborates his testimony.

Both Pratap (PW-11) and Narayan (PW-12) had also stated that Smt. Chauthi Devi had gone towards jungle and her dead-body was found there.

Having noted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, now it is time for us to look at the incriminating evidence, which has emerged in the evidence of remaining witnesses.

Ramniwas (PW-4) stated that the Police prepared the site-plan of spot, where Bihari Lal was murdered vide Exhibit-P/1. The Police lifted simple and blood stained soil from the spot vide memo Exhibit-P/4. Thereafter, at a some distance, the Police had made prepared the site-plan (Exhibit-P/3) of the place, where Smt. Chauthi Devi was murdered, the Police had taken into possession the blouse of Smt. Chauthi Devi vide memo Exhibit-P/4).

The witnesses had also attested the Inquest of the dead-body and recovery of clothes of deceased. The Police had also recovered at the instance of Jitendra sword from the pipes near the water works vide memo Exhibit-P/6. Jagdish (PW-2) had attested vide Exhibit-P/9 the inquest proceedings of the dead-body of Bihari Lal. Jitendra Kumar (PW-3) had attested the arrest memo of accused, Jitendra. He also proved Exhibit-P/6, whereby sword was recovered at the instance of the accused. He had also attested vide memo Exhibit-P/7, whereby accused got his blood stained pant, shirt and sweater recovered.

Puran Singh (PW-8) was posted as Constable at Police Station, Sikar. He had accompanied Investigating Officer and had attested arrest memo and other memos regarding recovery of the sword and clothes made from the accused.

Mahaveer Prasad (PW-9) stated that on 11.03.2004 complainant, Pratap (PW-11) had presented a written-report (Exhibit-P/19). On the basis of which, he registered a formal First Information Report, bearing No. 105/2004, (Exhibit-P/20).

Thereafter, Pooja (PW-5) had submitted another written-report (Exhibit-P/12). On the basis of which, he had also registered a formal First Information Report, bearing No. 106/2004 (Exhibit-P/21).

Balveer Singh (PW-10) was posted as Constable photographer. He had taken photographs of the spot and also proved negatives. He also proved photographs of deceased Smt. Chauti Devi lying at the spot.

Arjun Lal (PW-13) had carried sealed packets to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur. Prem Singh (PW-14) was posted as In-charge, Malkhana. Both the witnesses were examined to prove link evidence.

Prakash Kumar Sharma (PW-15), being Investigating Officer proved various facets of the investigation.

Thereafter, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. They denied the same and pleaded innocence and false implication.

Mohan (DW-1) and Mahendra (DW-2) were examined to prove the alibi of Jitendra, accused. They had stated that accused, Jitendra had gone along with them to attend Mela of Sheetla Mata.

In the First Information Reports (Exhibit-P/20 and Exhibit-P/21), which are based upon written-reports (Exhibit-P/19 and Exhibit-P/12), no overt role has been assigned to Nemichand and Killo @ Ravi. In the Court, the witnesses made improvements and stated that even though these two accused Nemichand and Killo @ Ravi were empty handed, they had caused fist and kick blows to deceased Bihari Lal and Smt. Chauthi Devi. The witnesses were duly confronted with their previous statements, as role assigned to Nemichand and Killo @ Ravi were not mentioned in their previous statements recorded by the Police.

Considering the fact that no overt role has been played by the appellants as per written-reports (Exhibit-P/12 and Exhibit-P/19) and the witnesses have made improvements, we are convinced that the trial Court has rightly acquitted these appellants for remaining offence. Therefore, acquittal of accused Nemichand and Killo recorded by the trial Court for various offences, except under Sections 323 I.P.C., is, hereby, affirmed by us.

So far as acquittal of three appellants, namely Jitendra, Nemichand and Killo @ Ravi for offence under Section 3(11)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is concerned, we are of the firm view that it has come in the prosecution evidence that the accused have not caused injuries to Ramniwas (PW-4), merely on the ground that he is a Member of the Scheduled Castes Community.

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2000(2) RCC 894, in similar circumstances, held as under:--

"10. The doctor opined that from the external injuries, the possibility of rape being committed, cannot be denied. The doctor also seized the ''ghaghra'' of the prosecutrix on which spots of semen were detected. He further stated that the accused Manohar Singh was also examined on 19.12.1996. He was found fit for indulging in sexual intercourse. The prosecution has produced the FSL report dated 2.9.1997, which shows that human semen was found on the ''ghaghra''. Thus, on careful consideration, we find the testimony of P.W.8 Mst. Ramila as trustworthy. The learned Judge has rightly held the accused appellant guilty of rape.

The next question, which arises for consideration is whether the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act is justified and legal?

We have, recently in a case of Pappu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, "D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 722/98 decided on 2.9.1999", examined the scope and ambit of Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act. It is held therein that for the offence under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act, beside the ingredients of respective offence of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is further required to establish that the accused being a person of non S.C./S.T. has committed the crime on a person of S.C./S.T. for the reason that such person belonged to such community or tribe."

The view taken by the Division Bench of this Court was subsequently followed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sohan Singh and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 1 WLC 596 : (2003) 2 WLN 551 . Their Lordships, while examining the law laid in Manohar Singh''s case (supra) further to fortify had relied upon the observations of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 1876 : (2000) 2 JT 367 : (2000) 2 SCALE 70 : (2000) 3 SCC 557 : (2000) 1 SCR 1155 : (2000) 1 UJ 554 : (2000) AIRSCW 719 : (2000) 1 Supreme 584 . Since their Lordships relying upon the observations of the Hon''ble Apex Court in a very lucid manner had answered the above question. With all reverence to Their Lordships, the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:

"10. We have considered the rival submissions, and have also gone through the record carefully. We may first take up the sustainability of the conviction u/s. 3(2)(v) of the Act. We may gainfully recapitulate the language of Sec. 3(2)(v) which reads as under:--

"(v) committed any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine."

Our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the appellants, to a recent judgment of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 1876 : (2000) 2 JT 367 : (2000) 2 SCALE 70 : (2000) 3 SCC 557 : (2000) 1 SCR 1155 : (2000) 1 UJ 554 : (2000) AIRSCW 719 : (2000) 1 Supreme 584 , which was a case relating to murder, wherein the accused was convicted for the offence u/s. 304-II IPC and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act, and under the former he was sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment while under the later he was sentenced to life imprisonment. These convictions were confirmed by the High Court. In appeal the Hon''ble Supreme Court noticed that there was no dispute about the deceased dying homicidal death, and considering the nature of injuries, confirmed the conviction u/s. 304-II IPC. Facts in that case were that between 7.00 and 8.00 p.m. on the fateful day Saoji Gamaji Jadhav, a member of Scheduled Caste, who had returned to his house at dusk, and after some time had left the house informing his wife that he would be going out for some time, and would return soon, thereafter. After about half an hour of the deceased left his home, the appellant came to the house of the deceased and enquired from his wife about the deceased. At that time the appellant was carrying a ''jambiya''. On coming to know from her that her husband had gone out of the house, the appellant started running through the lane. The wife getting suspicious followed, and near the hospital of Dr. Kalwaghe, she saw the appellant stabbing the deceased who fell down and died. It is on these facts Hon''ble the Supreme Court has held as under:--

"To attract the provisions of Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act, the sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and that the offence under the Indian Penal Code is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence u/s. 3(2)(v) of the Act arises. In that view of the matter, we think, both the trial Court and the High Court missed the essence of this aspect."

With the above findings the conviction u/s. 3(2)(v) was set aside. In our view, the judgment in Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman''s case fully supports the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, and since in the present case also, there is not an iota of material on record, even to indicate that, either of the offence was committed "on the basis" that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste. Accordingly, the conviction for the offence, u/s. 3(2)(v) of the Act, is very much required to be set aside."

Therefore, we also uphold the acquittal of the accused for offence punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

As a result thereof, we find no merit in both the D.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal bearing No. 162/2012 and 163/2012 preferred by the State of Rajasthan; and consequently, both the applications for leave to appeal are, hereby, dismissed.

We are left with the conviction awarded upon the appellant, Jitendra for causing murder of Bihari Lal and Smt. Chauthi Devi.

In the present case, occurrence had taken place on 11.03.2004 at 10:30 P.M. On the basis of written-report (Exhibit-P/19), a formal First Information Report was registered at 11:30 P.M. Immediately, the family members of Ramniwas and Bihari Lal had taken, Bihari Lal and Ramniwas to the hospital. Meanwhile, Smt. Chauthi Devi ran towards the jungle. She was murdered by Jitendra immediately. The First Information Report (Exhibit-P/21) was registered on 12.03.2004 at 08:40 A.M.

Thus, it is apparent that First Information Reports (Exhibit-P/20 and Exhibit-P/21) lodged were based upon written-reports (Exhibit-P/19 and Exhibit-P/12). Only Jitendra was named as principal accused, who caused murder of Bihari Lal and Smt. Chauthi Devi with sword. He also caused injuries to Ramniwas.

Ramniwas (PW-4), being an injured witness stated that the occurrence had taken place in the night. Pooja (PW-5), daughter of injured, is expected to be present in the house. Ramniwas stated, in categoric terms, that Jitendra had caused injuries to him and Bihari Lal. Not only presence of Ramniwas is stamped, but he is expected to be present in his house at the night time. Jitendra, after causing murder of Bihari Lal and injury to Ramniwas had chased Smt. Chauthi Devi and caused her murder also in the jungle. Both the occurrence have taken place in a quick succession.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, we find no reason to disbelieve deposition of witnesses, Ramniwas (PW-4), Pooja (PW-5), Pratap (PW-11) and Narayan (PW-12) who were present at the seen of occurrence.

No meaningful argument has been extended to doubt the presence of the witnesses.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, has submitted before us that since nobody has seen murder of Smt. Chauthi Devi, we should set aside, the conviction of appellant, Jitendra for a murder of Smt. Chauthi Devi; and so far as murder of Bihari Lal is concerned, he was an intervener and, therefore, for causing injuries intervenor, we should convert offence under Section 302 I.P.C. to 304 Part-I of I.P.C.

We are not inclined to accept the argument advanced by Mr. Gupta, counsel appearing for the accused-appellants.

Appellant, Jitendra had gone to the house of Ramniwas. Bihari Lal came there. Thus, appellant caused two injuries to deceased Bihari Lal. Injury No. 1 was caused in the chest and injury No. 2 was caused on the right cheek. Furthermore, Bihari Lal was not a mere intervenor. He restrained accused Jitendra not to give beating to Ramniwas (PW-4), after he was exhorted to stay away, then injuries were caused to him. It is not the case that Bihari Lal deceased came in between and suffered injury.

Furthermore, we cannot say that there is no evidence to the murder of Smt. Chauthi Devi. Pooja (PW-5), daughter of

Smt. Chauthi Devi has stated that immediately after her mother ran towards the jungle, accused chased and followed her having a naked sword in his hand. Immediately thereafter, dead-body of Smt. Chauthi Devi has been found in the jungle.

To us, it is sufficient evidence to infer the guilt on the part of the appellant to cause murder of Smt. Chauthi Devi.

So far as murder of Bihari Lal is concerned, the testimony of injured Ramniwas (PW-4), Pratap (PW-11) Narayan (PW-12) and Pooja (PW-5) is sufficient. These witnesses are truthful and aspire confidence of the Court and, therefore, we can place implicit reliance upon these witnesses.

As a result of above discussions, we find no merit in the appeals preferred by appellant, Jitendra; and consequently, D.B. Criminal Appeal bearing Nos. 31/2007 and 32/2007, being devoid of merit are, hereby, dismissed, along with the applications preferred by the appellant/State of Rajasthan for grant of leave to appeal, being D.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal Nos. 162/2012 and 163/2012.