AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th of December, 1995 passed in Session Trial No. 9/93 by the Third Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default sentence of R.I. for 2 years. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-
Deceased- Sudarshan was nephew of the appellant. The appellant was issueless, therefore, he had kept the deceased as his son. On 16.7.1992, the appellant assaulted the deceased by a khunta (a round log used in bullock-cart) on his head. The incident was witnessed by Meera Bai (PW-2), Moolchand (PW-4), Dasodiya Bai (PW-5) and Kashiram (PW-9). Moolchand (PW- 4) lodged the First Information Report (F.I.R. - Ex.- P/2). Inquest (Ex.-P/9) was prepared and the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. The post- mortem examination was conducted by Dr. R.D. Gupta (PW- 6). The post-mortem report is Ex.-P/5. The Autopsy Surgeon found multiple serious injuries on the dead body of the deceased. On internal examination, it was found that there were fractures on right maxilla, angle of the jaw, right temporal and parietal bone & frontal bone. It was noticed that temporal, parietal and frontal bones were broken into multiple pieces. The case of the prosecution was mainly based on the eye-witness account of above 4 witnesses, out of which, Meera Bai (PW-2) and Kashiram (PW-9) did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned Session Judge, relied on the testimonies of Moolchand (PW-4) & Dasodiya Bai (PW-5) and held that it was the appellant who committed murder of the deceased by giving multiple blows on his skull, therefore, he was liable for punishment u/s 302 IPC.
Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that Moolchand (PW-4) and Dasodiya Bai (PW-5) are unreliable witnesses; they are relative witnesses; therefore, conviction based on their testimonies cannot be sustained.
On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Dubey, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Session Court.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the session case.
There is no proposition of law that the testimonies of relative witnesses should not be relied on and their evidence should be discarded out-rightly on the ground that they were relatives of the deceased or the accused. The law is that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with great care and caution and after scrutiny of their evidence, if the same appear to be trustworthy, conviction can well be based on such evidence of the relative witnesses.
Deceased- Sudarshan was maternal uncle of Moolchand (PW-4). Moolchand deposed that on the fateful day, he heard that the appellant was abusing the deceased. When he came out of his house, he saw that the deceased saying to the appellant "ys dkdk ekj ys ". The appellant was holding a khunta. The appellant gave first blow to the deceased by khunta on his skull. When the deceased fell down, the appellant continued to assault him by khunta. He gave repeated blows to the deceased.
Dasodiya Bai (PW-5) deposed that deceased- Sudarshan was his maternal uncle''s son. Appellant- Samelal had assaulted the deceased by khunta of bullock-cart. He had assaulted him on skull. She herself had witnessed the assault. When the incident took place, she was sitting near her house. The incident had taken place in the gali of Kashiram''s house. Deceased- Sudarshan died instantaneously. According to her, the incident was also witnessed by Moolchand (PW-4).
Dr. R.D. Gupta (PW-6) had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and had noted above injuries including above fractures (multiple fractures) on various skull bones. He had opined that the above injuries could be caused by hard, blunt and heavy object. In fact, the testimonies of above 2 eye-witnesses are corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. R.D. Gupta (PW-6).
The above 2 eye-witnesses Moolchand (PW-4) and Dasodiya Bai (PW-5) were put to lengthy cross-examinations by the defence, but the defence has not been able to elicit any such circumstances, on which, either their testimonies may be discarded or it may be said that they were falsely implicating the appellant in crime in question. If these witnesses are taken to be relatives of the deceased on the one hand, on the other hand, they are also relatives of the appellant. We have scrutinized their evidence with great care and caution. Their evidence inter-se corroborates each other and it is further corroborated by medical evidence. The houses of these witnesses are adjacently situated to the house of the appellant. The incident occurred at an open place at about 14.30 hours. There is no question of mistaken identity. The incident was reported to the police station by Moolchand (PW4) at about 16.30 hours on the same day. The distance of police station is 10 Kms. The F.I.R. (Ex.-P/2) contains all above details with particulars of the appellant and the deceased. Even it contains the words spoken by deceased before the assault like "ys dkdk ekj ys ". Moolchand (PW-4) has proved the contents of the F.I.R. (Ex.-P/2).
On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, we do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Session Court that it was the appellant who assaulted the deceased by khunta and he was liable for punishment u/s 302 IPC. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.