Naresh (In Jail) vs State of U.P.

J.C. Gupta, J.—the judgment dated 21.5.80, the then Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur has found the Appellant Naresh guilty u/s 302, I.P.C. for committing the murder of Smt. Reshma on 6.11.1979 at about 12 noon and he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Appellant has preferred this appeal.

Khayali Singh had two sons, namely, Sohan Pal P.W. 1 and Ram Pal Singh. Ram Pal Singh disappeared and his whereabouts were not known for about two years. Smt. Reshma, the deceased of this case was his wife. Appellant Naresh is the own cousin of Ram Pal Singh. Naresh and Ram Pal used to live in the same house having separate outlets. After disappearance of Ram Pal Singh, Smt. Reshma is said to have made an offer to accused Naresh that if he could get the agricultural land of Ram Pal mutated in her name, she would marry him. With the efforts and pairokari of the accused, name of Smt. Reshma was mutated against the property left by Ram Pal. However, Smt. Reshma did not keep her promise and declined to marry accused Naresh. On account of this accused became annoyed with her.

It is said that on 6.11.1979, Smt. Reshma along with her daughter Smt. Roop P.W. 6 had gone to her field for cutting "Rausa". While they were busy in their work, accused Naresh appeared at the scene and asked Smt. Reshma to sit with him as his wife and on her refusal, he started assaulting her with knife. Cries and shrieks of Smt. Roopa and Smt. Reshma attracted Sohan Pal P.W. 1, Bhadra Pal Singh, Atta Khan P.W. 2, Darbari P.W. 3 and others at the scene of occurrence and they also saw accused inflicting knife blows on Smt. Reshma. Accused then lifted Smt. Reshma in his laps and walked for some distance thereafter and dropped her in the same field and took to his heels when challenged by the witnesses. Smt. Reshma died instantaneously.

Sohan Lal P.W. 1, devar of the deceased went to police station Tilhar and dictated an oral report which was reduced into writing in the check register at 2.00 p.m. The F.I.R. is Ex. Ka-1, Sub-Inspector Ran Singh P.W. 5 was posted as Inspector-in-charge of Police Station Tilhar and in his presence the F.I.R. was taken down at the police station by Head Constable Yogendra Sharma and a case was registered in the general diary at serial No. 21. Its copy is Ex. Ka-3. Inspector Ran Singh took up investigation and he along with police force immediately reached the place of occurrence where he found the dead body of Smt. Reshma lying in her field. The inquest proceedings were got completed by S.I. Ram Nath Gaur. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Sohan Pal, Smt. Roopa, Darbari and Atta Khan and he then made inspection of the scene of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-4. He noticed presence of blood at the place where the dead body was lying and further found drops of blood up to a distance of about 32 paces towards north west. He collected blood from both the places. At the place of occurrence he also found three broken teeth and also some harvested stalks of "Rausa". After completing the investigation he submitted charge-sheet Ex. Ka-5 against the Appellant.

Accused-Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 7 witnesses before the trial court namely Sohan Pal P.W. 1, Atta Khan P.W. 2, Darbari P.W. 3, Dr. S. K. Mehrotra P.W. 4, Inspector Ran Singh P.W. 5, Smt. Roopa P.W. 6 and S.I. Ram Nath Gaur P.W. 7. Out of these witnesses Sohan Pal, Atta Khan, Darbari and Smt. Roopa are eye-witnesses.

Dr. S. K. Mehrotra conducted autopsy on the dead body of Smt. Reshma on 7.11.1979 at 2 p.m. and prepared the post-mortem report Ex. Ka-2. The following ante-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of Smt. Reshma:

Incised wound 6 cm. ? 1 cm. ? bone deep below left eyeball.

Incised wound 5 cm. ? 0.5 cm. ? skull cavity deep on nose bridge.

Incised wound 8 cm. ? 1.2 cm. ? bone deep on right cheek.

Incised wound 5 cm. ? 0.6 cm. below injury No. 3.

Haematoma on left side face.

Incised wound 3 cm. ? 1 cm. ? through and through on upper lip right side.

Incised wound 2 cm. ? 0.5 cm. ? mouth cavity deep on left side of mouth.

Incised wound 4 cm. ? 0.5 cm. ? bone deep on chin, mandible cut.

Lower gum cut. Teeth were very loose in socket and upper and lower lateral incisors were absent.

On internal examination the doctor found that zygoma mandible and axillary temporal bones of the face were fractured. Membranes were congested. Brain was lacerated under injury No. 2 and big haematoma was present inside brain matter showing internal damage. Both the eyeballs had been destroyed and badly mutilated. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.

The defence was of complete denial.

Sri P. N. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and learned A.G.A. Sri R. K. Singh have been heard at length.

As far as the factum of death of Smt. Reshma is concerned, the same has neither been disputed before the trial court by the defence nor the same has been challenged before us by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. From the statement of the doctor S. K. Mehrotra P.W. 4, there can be no dispute that the deceased Smt. Reshma had sustained a number of ante-mortem incised injuries which ultimately resulted in her instantaneous death. It has further been stated by Dr. S. K. Mehrotra that the injuries found on her body could be inflicted by knife and were sufficient to cause her death in the ordinary course. It is, therefore, proved beyond doubt that Smt. Reshma had died a homicidal death.

It has next to be seen as to whether it is proved beyond doubt that the homicidal death of Smt. Reshma was caused by the Appellant in the manner alleged by the prosecution?

The motive for the murder is said to be refusal by the deceased to marry the accused. As already stated above the case of prosecution is that husband of Smt. Reshma, Ram Pal Singh had disappeared and his whereabouts were not known for the last more than two years. Smt. Reshma then made an offer to the accused Naresh, first cousin of Ram Pal that in case he got her name mutated against the property of Ram Pal she would will him. Accused is said to have helped Smt. Reshma in this regard but after her name was mutated, she backed out from her promise and refused to marry accused Naresh. This motive has been stated in detail by Sohan Pal P.W. 1 who is the brother of Ram Pal and devar of the deceased. In his statement recorded u/s 313, Cr. P.C. it was admitted by the accused that Ram Pal had disappeared. He further admitted that he got the name of Smt. Reshma mutated. However, he denied that he was willing to marry her or that he had made any such demand. There is nothing on record to indicate that Sohan Pal P.W. 1 had any animus against the Appellant. Being thickly related to the deceased, these facts must have been in his personal knowledge. As admitted by the accused himself, he was unmarried. Even Smt. Roopa, the daughter of the deceased has also stated that before the accused started assaulting the deceased, he again made a request to her mother to marry him but on her flat refusal, he started assaulting her. Since Ram Pal had only disappeared and there was no proof of his death. Smt. Reshma would have found it difficult in getting her name mutated and she might have requested Naresh to help her in the matter by making the above said offer. As since the Appellant was cousin of Ram Pal, he might have accepted the said proposal and got her name mutated as admitted by the accused himself in his statement u/s 313, Cr. P.C. The betrayal of Smt. Reshma later on certainly must have irked the accused. He suffered cheating and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was absolutely no motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased Smt. Reshma. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the motive alleged is too trifling and inadequate to excite or prompt the Appellant to take the life of her own Bhabhi. Existence of motive which operates in the mind of an assassin at the relevant time is very often beyond the reach of others. The human nature being very tricky, a man''s passion may be aroused at times by some very trifling circumstance. Motives amongst men are often very deep seated so as to be almost unfathomable. In same set of circumstances different people react differently. Some are so docile and tolerant that even major incidents touching their character, image or reputation may not have any bearing on them and their passions are not aroused whereas there are others who become highly excited and provoked even on trivial issues that they may think of taking the severest step or may even decide to take revenge by eliminating that person who caused annoyance to him. In this regard, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as feeling of revenge differs from person to person. It is very difficult for any man to digest insult. Moreover, it is established law that the fact that motive appears to be inadequate is by itself not a circumstance against the prosecution. The alleged motive may be simply meagre and ostensibly in some cases there may not be any motive but for that reason alone, the prosecution case cannot be thrown overboard as false, improbable or suspicious. If the evidence of the eye-witnesses is succinctly clear, absence or inadequacy of motive is not to be attached any weightage.

This leads us to examine the evidence of the eye-witnesses. In the present case, the prosecution in the trial court has produced four eye-witnesses, namely, Sohan Pal P.W. 1, Atta Khan P.W. 2, Darbari P.W. 3 and Smt. Roopa P.W. 6. Out of these witnesses Smt. Roopa is the own daughter of the deceased. As per her statement, she was present with her mother in the same field where the incident had occurred. She had gone there with her mother for cutting "Rausa". In cross-examination, she stated that she was having a ''Hansia'' (sickle) while her mother was empty handed. She was harvesting ''Rausa'' with ''Hansia'' while her mother was stalking Rausa by her hands. Learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of the Court to the cross-examination of P.W. 1 Sohan Pal wherein he stated that on the date of occurrence, Smt. Reshma had left the house at about 11.30 a.m. for harvesting ''Rausa'' and she had carried with her ''Hansia''. It was argued that Smt. Roopa had, however, contradicted him by stating that Smt. Reshma was empty handed while she herself was cutting Rausa with Hansia. It is no contradiction inasmuch as P.W. 1 Sohan Pal had stated the fact of Smt. Reshma carrying Hansia at a time when she left her house and it might be that on reaching the field, Smt. Roopa would have taken Hansia from her mother in order to harvest the crop. It is noteworthy that P.W. 1 Sohan Pal had further categorically stated that Smt. Roopa had gone with her mother empty handed. Thus, even as per the statement of P.W 1 Sohan Pal, both the ladies had carried only one ''Hansia'' which at the relevant time was held by Smt. Roopa. She being comparatively much young may have opted to harvest.

Smt. Roopa has narrated the entire incident and has specifically stated that accused Naresh inflicted knife injuries on her mother Smt. Reshma at about 12 noon when she was present in her field. She further stated that on the cries raised by her and her mother, Sohan Pal, Darbari and Atta Khan also arrived there. It has come in the statement of P.W. 1 Sohan Pal that the field of occurrence was removed by only 100-150 paces from his house where he was present and heard the cries of Reshma and Roopa. He further stated that Darbari and Atta Khan had also reached there and had witnessed the entire incident. Atta Khan P.W. 2 has stated that at the time of occurrence he was present in the chhappar of his house and when he heard cries of the ladies he saw Darbari and Sohan Pal running towards the field of Reshma. He also ran in the same direction and witnessed that Naresh was inflicting knife injuries on his sister-in-law Smt. Reshma. P.W. 3 Darbari was also present at his house from where he was attracted to the scene of occurrence. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 1 Sohan Pal that the house of Atta Khan is adjacent to the house of Naresh in south and the house of Sohan Pal is also adjacent to the house of Naresh. Sohan Pal has further stated that when Smt. Reshma and Roopa had gone to the field in question, Darbari was sitting at the door of his house. Thus, it is apparent that all these three witnesses were present only at a little distance from the place of incident and could be easily attracted to the spot by the cries and shrieks of Roopa and Smt. Reshma. It was a daytime and there would not have been any difficulty for them to have identified accused Naresh even from a distance of 50 paces as the accused was their neighbour and was very well known to them. Both Atta Khan and Darbari are wholly independent witnesses having no animus whatsoever against the accused nor they are shown to be having any affinity with Sohan Pal. That apart, even Sohan Pal P.W. 1 had no reason to depose falsely against the accused and implicate him in a heinous crime like murder especially when his relationship with the deceased and the accused is evenly balanced. Their evidence is most consistent and is further corroborated by the medical evidence in as much as a number of incised injuries caused by knife were found on the body of deceased Smt. Reshma. The vehemence with which the weapon was pushed in her mouth is sufficient to betray the anger and hatred nursed by the accused.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant made a criticism on the evidence of Smt. Roopa by submitting that though she happened to be the daughter of the deceased and was holding a ''Hansia'' in her hand, yet she did not come forward to intervene and save her mother from assault at the hands of the accused. The question which thus stares at our face is whether on this ground alone Smt. Roopa P.W. 6 could be condemned and her presence at the scene of occurrence doubted? On examination of record and consideration of circumstances appearing in the case, we find ourselves unable to accept this submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. It is in the evidence that at the relevant time, she was harvesting Rausa in the field while her mother Smt. Reshma was removing Rausa at some distance in the same field. Accused Naresh arrived there abruptly and threw his offer of marriage. On being rebuked, he launched an assault on her mother with knife with alarming speed and swiftness that she benumbed. Before she could gather herself and react, the incident was over. In these circumstances, one could never visualise the intensity of the shock especially when accused was none else but her own uncle who inflicted knife blows on her mother one after the other in a dare devil fashion. She gave out her age as about 19 years when her statement was recorded in Court, which means that at the time of the occurrence, she was a young lady of about 18 years of age. Apparently having been confronted with an abrupt and unexpected situation, an immatured girl like she was must have been shocked, horrified and stunned resulting in deprivation of the vigour. There was, thus, nothing unnatural that she simply raised alarm for help instead of advancing towards her mother for her help. The thought of meeting the same fate might have passed through her spine which made her stone footed and so she failed to intervene. Her cries for help must have yelled out instantly as a natural human phenomenon. The fact that P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were attracted to the scene of occurrence on the cries of Smt. Roopa testifies her presence at the place of occurrence. We cannot lose sight of the fact that people do not react to situations in an uniform way. No hard and fast rule of universal application with regard to the reaction of persons in a given situation can be laid down. Our experience tells that in many cases where a person happens to come across a gruesome and cruel act being perpetuated within his sight, he loses his equilibrium and balance of mind and becomes completely mute and stand-still as a silent spectator till he is able to recoup. In some cases, such persons even become unconscious. There are persons who may react by just shouting for help while some may even choose to quietly slip away from the scene. Yet there may be persons who are so daring and chivalrous enough that they may come forward unhesitatingly and jump into the fray at the risk of their own life with a zeal to scare away the assailants and save the victim from further assault. People''s reaction in a given case would vary from person to person. Courage is akin to their physical strength, mental equipment, age, sex, maturity and social awareness, etc. It cannot be laid down as a general rule that whenever a person is found to have not jumped into the fray in order to rescue his or her dearest kith and kin, his/her evidence should be ignored or rejected. Such a conduct at many a time may be found to be natural and befitting to the circumstances of that particular case. Barring that, in such cases the Courts are put to a strict and closure scrutiny of the evidence, no straight-jacket formula can be invented in this regard. In the circumstances of the present case, the conduct of P.W. 6 Smt. Roopa cannot be characterized as incongruous especially looking to the fact that she was an immature girl of about 18 years of age and the murderous assault was made on her mother by her own uncle unexpectedly and in a truncated manner. Women are rarely found daring more often than not, the shock used to unnerve them. Her presence at the scene of occurrence is not only supported by the evidence of three independent witnesses but is further strengthened by the fact that at the time of the spot inspection, the Investigating Officer has found harvested stalks of ''Rausa'' plant at the place where she was present in the field. The criticism levelled by learned Counsel for the Appellant against the evidence of P.W. 6 Smt. Roopa is thus found to be devoid of any force and is accordingly discarded.

It was next submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that in addition to Smt. Roopa P.W. 6, three more witnesses had arrived at the scene of occurrence yet the accused could not be apprehended. In this regard, suffice it to say that the witnesses Sohan Pal, Atta Khan and Darbari were placed at a distance of about 100-150 paces and on hearing cries, they all rushed towards the scene of occurrence and saw the incident while they were in the process of running and by the time they reached the field of occurrence, the accused took to his heels dropping Smt. Reshma in the field at a distance of 32 paces from the place where she was assaulted. The witnesses thus had no time to overpower the Appellant and the fact that the accused dropped the dead body of Smt. Reshma in the field supports the version of the witnesses that the accused took to his heels after being challenged by the witnesses.

It was then submitted by Sri P. N. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Appellant that the deceased was a grown up lady aged about 38 years and if she was assaulted by the accused with the knife in the manner alleged by the prosecution, she was expected to put some resistance and the fact that no injury either on the chest or on her hands were found goes to show that no resistance was caused and it seemed likely that she was murdered by more than one person by overpowering her and in some other manner. In the absence of effective cross-examination, we find no substance in this submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. It was not asked as to in what manner the knife blows were inflicted. It may also be relevant to point out here that it has come in the statement of P.W. 3 Darbari that Smt. Reshma was a woman of weak constitution. This is fortified from the fact that the accused could lift her to a distance of 32 paces. It has also come in the statement of the witnesses that a number of blows were inflicted when Smt. Reshma had fallen on the ground. Therefore, there was nothing unnatural if no knife injuries were found on the chest or the hands of the deceased, especially when she was weak and fragile and was attacked by the accused with such tremendous force and speed that she could not resist to sustain injuries on palm or fingers.

Before the Sessions Court, some arguments were also raised regarding the F.I.R. and it was submitted that the F.I.R. was not genuine and appeared to have been ante-timed. The learned Sessions Judge repelled the said contention by giving cogent reasons and the learned Counsel for the Appellant before us could not point out any such material or piece of evidence from which even a doubt could be created in our mind about the genuineness of the F.I.R. The incident in question had occurred in broad-daylight and the F.I.R. had also been lodged promptly wherein the details of the incident as well as the name of the accused had been clearly stated. The evidence given at the trial consisted of independent, natural and probable witnesses which is also corroborated by the medical evidence, P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 would be the last persons to allow the real assailants go scotfree and involve the Appellant for no rhyme or reason, a close relation of theirs. In our opinion, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the Appellant and having regard to the nature of the injuries and statement of Dr. S. K. Mehrotra that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, we endorse the view of the learned Sessions Judge that the offence committed by the Appellant squarely falls under clause thirdly of Section 300, I.P.C. and accordingly his conviction u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life deserve to be maintained.

For the reasons stated above this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The conviction of the Appellant u/s 302, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life thereunder are maintained. The Appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge and affirmed by this Court. C.J.M., Shahjahanpur, is directed to take immediate appropriate steps for making compliance of this order and send compliance report to this Court at the earliest.