Hardayal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Hardayal vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 12, 2006

~9 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/757693

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/757693
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 12, 2006
Case Number: D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2000
Subject: Criminal;Property
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Determination as to Juvenile - Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged oc...

Key legal issue: Criminal;Property
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hardayal

Advocate Neelu Mathur, Amicus Curiae

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Advocate Shyam Arya, Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 313
Reported In: RLW2006(3)Raj1824; 2006(2)WLC701

Excerpt

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - she rushed to the roof and saw that the neck of her husband was cut and her brother in law accused hardayal was running and he was having something like axe (kulhadi) in his hand. it is also argued that witnesses produced by the prosecution are not reliable and appeal should be allowed and conviction and sentence should be set aside. it is also contended that witnesses examined by the prosecution are reliable. he has clearly stated in the statement that accused has committed murder of his father because of dispute about partition. it becomes clear that there was dispute relating to property and in our considered opinion, motive is clearly established by the prosecution. he has clearly stated that at about 5.30 a......hardayal was running and he was having something like axe (kulhadi) in his hand. she cried. many persons namely bhanwarlal, moduram, kanaji and her mother in law came there. it was also alleged in first information report that on previous occasion also accused has beaten her husband and her father in law. it is also alleged that because of animosity, accused has killed her husband. on this fir, police registered a case for the offence under section 302 ipc. police came on the spot. police prepared site plan and arrested the accused and recovered an axe (kulhadi) and also one baniyan on his information and at his instance and after completion of the investigation police filed challan before concerned magistrate for the offence under section 302 ipc. wherefrom case was committed to the court of addl. sessions judge, kishangarh, ajmer where the case was tried.5. after hearing the charge arguments, the learned trial court framed charge under section 302 ipc against the appellant hardayal. accused denied charges and claimed trial. prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses namely pw-1 harish chand, pw-2 bhanwarlal son of ramchandra, pw-3 heera lal, pw-4 bhanwarlal son of heera, pw-5 kanaram, pw-6 buddaram, pw-7 dr. gopal mathur, pw-8 rahul joshi,; pw-9 shankar pal singh, pw-10 bhanwarlal kachhawa, pw-11 kalyan, pw-12 ranjeet, pw-13 manbhar devi, pw-14 ramdev, pw-15 banna lal and pw-16 bhanwar singh. accused appellant was examined under section 313 cr.p.c. he did not examine any defence witness. arguments were head and trial court convicted the accused as mentioned here in above.6. arguments were heard.7. learned amicus curiae has argued that prosecution has not proved any offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. she has contended that prosecution could not prove any motive behind this murder. it is also contended that there is no eye witnesses of this occurrence and conviction is based only on circumstantial evidence. it is also argued that.....

Full Judgment

Shashi Kant Sharma, J.

1. Instant appeal has been filed by the accused appellant Hardayal against the judgment dated 23.6.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellant Hardayal for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months R.I.

2. Ms. Neelu Mathur was appointed as amicus curiae for appellant and arguments were heard.

3. The brief facts which are relevant and essential for the disposal of this appeal are as under:

4. PW-13 Manbhar Devi has lodged a written report Ex.P-1 on 1.6.98 at 7 a.m. to SHO Police Station Bandara Sindari District-Ajmer wherein it was alleged that her husband was working in Municipality and on 31.5.98 he came his home at Harmada. It was also alleged that in the night her husband was sleeping on the roof of the house. In the morning at about 5.30 am, she went there and her husband told her that he was just coming then she came down. At the same time, her brother in law (Devar) accused Hardayal went up on the roof and after some time she noticed that blood was coming through drain. She rushed to the roof and saw that the neck of her husband was cut and her brother in law accused Hardayal was running and he was having something like axe (Kulhadi) in his hand. She cried. Many persons namely Bhanwarlal, Moduram, Kanaji and her mother in law came there. It was also alleged in First Information report that on previous occasion also accused has beaten her husband and her father in law. It is also alleged that because of animosity, accused has killed her husband. On this FIR, police registered a case for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Police came on the spot. Police prepared site plan and arrested the accused and recovered an axe (Kulhadi) and also one Baniyan on his information and at his instance and after completion of the investigation police filed challan before concerned Magistrate for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Wherefrom case was committed to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, Ajmer where the case was tried.

5. After hearing the charge arguments, the learned Trial Court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant Hardayal. Accused denied charges and claimed trial. Prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses namely PW-1 Harish Chand, PW-2 Bhanwarlal son of Ramchandra, PW-3 Heera Lal, PW-4 Bhanwarlal son of Heera, PW-5 Kanaram, PW-6 Buddaram, PW-7 Dr. Gopal Mathur, PW-8 Rahul Joshi,; PW-9 Shankar Pal Singh, PW-10 Bhanwarlal Kachhawa, PW-11 Kalyan, PW-12 Ranjeet, PW-13 Manbhar Devi, PW-14 Ramdev, PW-15 Banna Lal and PW-16 Bhanwar Singh. Accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not examine any defence witness. Arguments were head and Trial Court convicted the accused as mentioned here in above.

6. Arguments were heard.

7. Learned Amicus Curiae has argued that prosecution has not proved any offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. She has contended that prosecution could not prove any motive behind this murder. It is also contended that there is no eye witnesses of this occurrence and conviction is based only on circumstantial evidence. It is also argued that witnesses produced by the prosecution are not reliable and appeal should be allowed and conviction and sentence should be set aside.

8. Learned Public Prosecution has argued that Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Accused has committed murder of his brother deceased Nandlal because of dispute of property. It is also contended that witnesses examined by the prosecution are reliable. Many witnesses have seen the accused person going from the place of occurrence. Blood stained axe (Kulhadi) has been recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused. Police has also recovered blood stained Baniyan of the accused on his information and at his instance. Prosecution story is corroborated by the medical evidence. It is also contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that PW-5 Kanaram is very importance witness. After committing this crime, accused met him on the way and confessed before him that he has finished Nandlal.

9. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. According to prosecution, accused appellant Hardayal has committed murder of his brother deceased Nandlal. PW-12 Ranjeet Singh who is son of the deceased has said in his statement that there was dispute about partition between his father and accused Hardayal. He has clearly stated in the statement that accused has committed murder of his father because of dispute about partition. This fact is also corroborated by the statement of PW13 Manbhar Devi. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that witnesses wanted to grab his property. After reading the entire prosecution evidence and the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 cr.p.c. it becomes clear that there was dispute relating to property and in our considered opinion, motive is clearly established by the prosecution.

10. PW 13 Manbhar Devi is wife of the deceased. Accused and deceased were real brothers and their wives are real sisters. In this case, statement of PW-13 is very important. She has lodged first information report in police. In her statement in court she has stated that her husband was sleeping on the roof of the house. In the morning at about 5 am she went there, her husband said that he was just coming. She came down. After a short span of time, she noticed that blood was coming through drain, she rushed to the roof and she saw that accused was coming from there having axe (Kulhadi) in his hand and neck of her husband was cut. She has also stated that accused used to struggle with her husband. We have examined the statement of Manbhardevi carefully we see no reason to disbelieve her statement.

11. Prosecution has examined PW-5 Kanaram. He is very important witness in this case. He has clearly stated that at about 5.30 a.m. accused Hardayal was running. He asked accused why he was running then accused Hardayal confessed that he has finished Nandlal. We have examined statement of this witness very carefully, we do not find any reason to disbelieve his statement. We have also examined statement of PW-7 Dr. Gopal Mathur and post mortem report Ex.P-13, in our view prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence.

12. We have also examined the evidence relating to seizure of Gadda, Takiya, Gudari, pair of Hawai Chappals and another Gudari from the place of occurrence near the dead body of Nandlal. Its seizure memo is Ex.P-8. These articles were seized by the police in the presence of PW-5 Kanaram and PW-11 Kalyan. Both of them are independent witnesses and have fully corroborated recovery of these articles. In our considered opinion, seizure of these five articles are fully proved by the prosecution.

13. We have also examined seizure of blood stained Chuna and control chuna. Its seizure memo is Ex.P-9. These articles were seized in the presence of PW-5 Kanaram and PW-11 Kalyan. They have fully corroborated seizure of these articles. We are of the considered view that seizure of these articles namely blood stained Chuna and control chuna is fully proved by the prosecution. Police has also recovered blood stained Lungi, underwear and Baniyan, Towel of the deceased. Its seizure memo is Ex.P-10. These articles were seized by the police in the presence of PW-5 Kanaram and PW-14 Ramdev. Both of them have fully corroborated the seizure of these articles by the police. Police has recovered blood stained axe (Kulhadi), blood stained Baniyan on the information and at the instance of accused. These articles namely blood stained axe (Kulhadi) and blood stained Baniyan were recovered in the presence of PW-2 Bhanwarlal son of Ramchandra and PW-3 Heeralal. Both of them are independent witnesses. They have fully corroborated the recovery of these articles. We are of the considered view that prosecution has fully proved the recovery of these blood stained Baniyan and Kulhadi. Prosecution has also proved the recovery of blood stained Dhoti and Kurta from the person of accused. All these articles were sent for examination to FSL. PW-9 Shankar Pal Singh was Malkhana in charge and PW-16 Bhanwar Singh who took these articles from Malkhana and deposited in FsL was also examined. FSL report Ex.P-19 has been submitted by the prosecution for perusal. According to FSL, Gadda, pair of Hawai Chappals, Gudarl, blood stained Chuna, Lungi, Baniyan, Towel, Dhoti, Kurta and axe (Kulhadi) which were referred to above were examined and according to FSL report, these articles were found to be stained with B-group blood. After examining the entire evidence on this point, we are of the view that prosecution has fully proved that blood group of the clothes which were recovered from the person of deceased Nandlal and blood group found on Gadda, Takiya etc. which were seized from the place of occurrence near the dead body of Nandlal and the blood group found on axe (Kulhadi) and Baniyan which were recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused and group of blood found on Dhoti and Kurta which were recovered from the person of the accused was same. In our considered opinion, this is important incriminating circumstance which goes against the accused.

14. We have also considered the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and we have found that accused appellant has not given any reasonable explanation about incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him.

15. We have examined entire evidence available on record. We have also examined impugned judgment, we are of the view that prosecution has produced ample evidence which may connect the accused with crime. We are of the view that Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

16. For the these reasons, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same stands dismissed. Conviction and sentence awarded to appellant Hardayal under Section 302 IPC are confirmed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2006 Same Parties Hardayal vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal;Property Same Judge Shiv Kumar Sharma and; Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 302; Code of Criminal Proc...

Criminal;Property