Judgment:
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.
1. The instant appeal has been filed by accused appellant Baldeo Singh against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8-5-2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 117/2002, by which accused -appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 449 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1000/- in respect of each offence, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. According to the facts of the case, upon statement of deceased Smt. Rani dated 1st July, 2002, an FIR was registered at Police Station, Hanumangarh Junction. In the statement so made at about 10.30 p.m. in the hospital, it was stated by Smt. Rani, wife of accused appellant Baldeo Singh that after marriage her husband Baldeo Singh used to beat her after taking liquor, therefore, before 15 days of the incident, when she was beaten by Baldeo Singh, she came back to her parents house and was living there. As per her statement, on that date i.e. 1-7-2002, her husband Baldeo Singh came in the morning at about 2 O'clock and asked her to accompany with him and reside in his house at Ganganagar but she refused because earlier she was beaten severly by him. Upon her refusal, he went from her parental house at that time but in the night at about 8 p.m. again came back in drunken condition and after entering the house gave two knife blows in her stomach and third blow on her forearm, due to which blood came out and she cried for help. On hearing her cry, her brother Nikka Singh and mother Mahendra Kaur came to her rescue at the spot and, thereafter, Baldeo Singh left house and she was brought to the hospital for treatment.
3. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR No. 379/2002 for offences under Sections 452, 323 IPC was registered and investigating Officer of Police Station Hanumangarh Junction commenced investigation.
4. After registration of the FIR, Smt. Rani died, therefore, on completion of investigation challan was filed against accused-appellant under Sections 302, 449 IPC before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh from where the case was committed to Sessions Court and transferred to the Court to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh, where trial took place.
5. On commencement of trial, charge were framed by the trial Court against accused-appellant for offence under Sections 302, 449 IPC and thereafter statements of 10 prosecution witnesses were recorded by the trial Court. To prove the case, prosecution produced two important eye-witnesses, viz., PW1 Nikka Singh and PW2 Mahendra Kaur, brother and mother of deceased Smt. Rani, so also to prove the medical evidence, statement of PW4 Dr. Jaspal was recorded and thereafter 34 documents were exhibited during trial. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded and from the defence side, statement of D. W. 1 Dr. Vinod Mawandiya was recorded by the trial Court and two documents were exhibited in defence.
6. After providing opportunity to lead evidence to the defence, final arguments were heard by trial Court and finally the case was decided vide impugned judgment which is under challenge.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that judgment under challenge is erroneous and is passed without appreciating the evidence on record. Further, it is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in fact the incident which is alleged to have occurred is not proved by cogent evidence by the prosecution, therefore, the conviction of the accused-appellant for committing offence under Sections 302 & 449 of the IPC is contrary to law and against the direct and circumstantial evidence, therefore, impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant further argued that occurrence took place all of a sudden when accused appellant entered in the house of his in-laws and saw an unknown person sitting in objectionable condition with his wife and therefore, incident took place. He submitted that even if it is presumed that accused appellant has assaulted deceased Smt. Rani then also no offence under Section 302 IPC is made out. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that character of his wife and other female members in her parental house was not good and deceased Rani without any reason after leaving the house of accused appellant Baldeo Singh was residing in the house of her parents so that she could do as per her desire. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant while inviting attention towards the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. submitted that in the statement so recorded by the trial Court, he has narrated correct story of the incident by which it is clear that prosecution has not come with clean hands before the Court and has suppressed the correct story from Court, therefore, the conviction which is based on the prosecution evidence deserves to be quashed.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant also vehemently argued that the version given by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. has not been considered properly. According to him, in fact, he had gone to bring his wife back from the house of his in laws but when he saw his wife with her paramour in objectionable condition, in sudden provocation he caused injuries to the deceased, so the offence though not admitted but even taking the prosecution case at its face value, the offence does not travel beyond Section 304 Part II IPC. While inviting attention towards the statements of PW1 Nikka Singh and PW2 Mahendra Kaur, it is submitted that non-disclosure of other evidence immediately after the occurrence by these witnesses clearly shows that they were not the eye witnesses of the occurrence. In this view of the matter, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the appellant has been wrongly convicted on the basis of concocted version which is built up on the basis of testimony of PW1 Nikka Singh and PW2 Mahendra Kaur, which is not corroborated by any other evidence, therefore, accused appellant is entitled to be acquitted from the charges levelled against him and is entitled for acquittal.
10. The learned Counsel for the appellant further argued that the prosecution story is totally improbable and is not supported by any independent witness. According to him, the accused appellant was arrested at random but vide Annex. Ex. P/22 his arrest was shown after three days by the Investigating Officer which is also objectionable and while inviting attention towards the statement of DW1 Vinod Mawandia it was submitted that the defence witness deposed in his statement that he found injuries on the body of the accused when he was examined by him on 1-7-2002, as such, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to examine before the Court as to how the accused sustained injuries on his body. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that in that view of the matter when prosecution has not proved the injuries of accused appellant, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that accused-appellant himself has not disputed the occurrence, therefore, he has given statement before the Court under Section 313 Cr. P.C. in which though he accepted his presence but has given a different story without any corroboration, therefore, once the accused appellant has not disputed his presence at the scene of occurrence then he cannot be permitted to say that prosecution has not proved its case. Further, it is submitted that admittedly the house in which the occurrence took place is the house of his in-laws where his wife deceased Rani was residing, therefore, a complete false story has been narrated by him in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and he has not only accepted the occurrence but has made very serious allegations against deceased Rani and her family members with regard to their character, therefore, such type of dishonest plea has been discredited by the learned trial Court and trial Court has relied upon the statement of the deceased which is made before the police and on the basis of which the FIR was registered. Learned Public Prosecutor while inviting attention towards the statement so made under Section 313 Cr. P.C. submitted that once the appellant is not disputing his presence at the scene of occurrence so also not disputing the injuries upon the body of deceased Rani and giving a different version for sustaining injuries by deceased Rani, then it was required for him under law to adduce evidence in support of the said contention which is made in his statement but there is no defence witness to corroborate the story which is narrated by him in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C, therefore, the prosecution story which is based on cogent oral as well as documentary evidence so also based upon the statements of eye witnesses PW1 Nikka Singh and PW2 Mahendra Kaur, cannot be discredited, more so, the reliance which is placed by the trial Court for the purpose of conviction is required to be upheld and this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
12. The learned Public Prosecutor also vehemently argued that accused appellant has committed serious offence whereby he has brutally murdered his wife in her parent's house and further has tried to allege that her character was not good, therefore, such type of story which is narrated by him for character assassination of the deceased deserves to be ignored and the prosecution story is required to be accepted.
13. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that by leading cogent evidence, it has been proved by the prosecution that the accused appellant has committed offence under Sections 302 and 449 of IPC and in respect of which evidence of both the eye witnesses PW1 Nikka Singh and PW2 Mahendra Kaur is on record and there is no corroborative evidence with regard to the story narrated by the accused appellant in his defence in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The injuries which are said to be inflicted by accused appellant by knife are well corroborated by medical evidence, therefore, no interference is warranted in this appeal, hence this appeal deserves to be dismissed.
14. We have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties.
15. After perusing entire record of the case, it is admitted position of the case that FIR was registered upon the statement of deceased Rani, which is Ex. 18. In the said statement, it is categorically stated by deceased Rani wife of accused appellant that she was assaulted by knife in her parents' house by accused appellant at about 8 PM in the evening and at that time he was in druken condition. She specifically stated in her statement that three injuries were inflicted by knife which is corroborated with the opinion given in the post-mortem report. In the opinion of the medical (evidence) the cause of death was due to injury to vital organs like small intestine and cephalic vein causing hemorrhage and shock leading to death, meaning thereby the story which was narrated by deceased Rani is well corroborated with the postmortem report Ex. P/15.
16. Now for adjudicating this matter, it is worthwhile to consider the important aspect of the matter whether the story narrated by accused appellant is trustworthy or not. In the statement of accused appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C, the following statements for defence were given by the accused appellant:
(Vernacular matter omitted...Ed.)
17. Upon perusal of above statement made by the accused-appellant, it appears that appellant received certain injuries on his body and those injuries were inflicted by unknown person who was found with the deceased in objectionable condition and in support of that accused-appellant has produced evidence of DW1 Dr. Vinod Mawandia so also document Ex. D/2, the prescription slip of treatment given by the said doctor. No injury report or any other oral evidence is produced to prove the statement made under Section 313 Cr. P.C. by the appellant.
18. We have perused the statement of DW1 Dr. Vinod Mawandia so also the prescription slip Ex. D/2. Upon perusal of the said slip it does not appear that from which hospital the accused-appellant took treatment and in the said slip there is no mention of any injury. Only names of certain medicines are mentioned, meaning thereby, accused appellant has tried to create confusion before the Court by taking a false plea in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Further, he has tried to make allegation about bad character of his wife and her family members but for the same he has not produced any reliable evidence, therefore, such type of allegation and dishonest plea taken by the accused-appellant deserves to be rejected.
19. The prosecution to prove its case, has adduced cogent evidence including the statements of PW1 Nikka Singh and PW2 Mahendra Kaur, who are brother and mother of Late Rani so also has proved the recovery of knife and PW8 ASI Rajeridra Singh of Police Station Hanumangarh has proved the statement made by late Smt. Rani Ex. P/18, in which correct story was narrated by deceased Rani. There is trustworthy evidence on record led by the prosecution to prove the case that accused-appellant has committed offence under Sections 302 and 449 of IPC, therefore, the plea of appellant that prosecution case does not travel beyond Section 304 Part II IPC is not acceptable. On the one hand, accused appellant is taking the plea that at the spur of moment the occurrence took place, and on other hand in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. it is stated by him that he has not inflicted any injury to deceased Smt. Rani. In this view of the matter, it can be said that accused appellant has tried to take dishonest plea for his acquittal, therefore, his plea is hereby rejected.
20. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant Shri R.S. Gill and perusing the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C, we are of the opinion that totally baseless arguments have been taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant that his case falls under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. On the one hand, he is arguing that due to sudden provocation occurrence took place and on the other hand in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. it is nowhere stated by the accused that in sudden provocation he had inflicted injuries to his wife deceased Rani. More so, it is stated by him in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that the boy who was there at the time of occurrence, inflicted injuries to his wife by knife, which speaks about the conduct of the accused appellant. On the one hand he is taking the plea that offence does not travel beyond Sec, 304 Part I or II IPC and on the other hand in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. he has narrated altogether a different story. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and learned trial Court has rightly relied upon the testimony of eye witnesses PW1 Nikka Singh and PW2 Mahendra Kaur so also rightly accepted the version given by late Rani in her statement Ex. P/18, upon which FIR was registered.
21. In aforesaid view of the matter, the appeal has no, force and same is hereby dismissed.