Goverdhan Mahto Vs. State (Delhi Administration) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- [b.c. ray and; k. jagannatha shetty shetty, jj.] -- criminal trial — circumstantial evidence — immediately before incident accused coming to his room, taking out a lathi and going away — thereafter, accused leaving his room where he lived along with other pws and staying with another pw to whom he made extra-judicial confession — held, all these circumstances lead to only conclusion that accused committed murder of deceased — conviction upheld — penal code, 1860, section 302 -- it was also submitted that the post-mortem report submitted by pw 1, doctor, stating that the death was due to the head injury is contrary to the inquest report. mr mulla further submitted that it was not possible for the accused to lend rs 500 to the deceased over which a quarrel took place between the deceased and the accused 5 to 6 days before the incident as the accused went to pw 12 immediately after the incident and took a loan of rs 20.  the accused stayed with him at night.b.c. ray and; k. jagannatha shetty shetty, jj.1. we have heard mr mulla, learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae, in extenso. the main contention of mr mulla is that pws 10, 11 and 13 were not present at the spot and they could not have witnessed the assault made by the accused on ajodhi mahto, since deceased, at about 7.30 a.m. because at that time according to their own version they were inside the room where cooking was going on. in the fir the name of the accused has been mentioned. mr mulla drew our attention to the inquest report wherein it had been stated that the injury appears to have been caused by a lathi and throttling. hence he contended that this inquest report contradicts the prosecution case that the death occurred due to the head injury received by the deceased ajodhi mahto. he contended that the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused person. it was also submitted that the post-mortem report submitted by pw 1, doctor, stating that the death was due to the head injury is contrary to the inquest report. mr mulla further submitted that it was not possible for the accused to lend rs 500 to the deceased over which a quarrel took place between the deceased and the accused 5 to 6 days before the incident as the accused went to pw 12 immediately after the incident and took a loan of rs 20.2. it has also been submitted that the inquest report was not properly considered by the courts below and as such the prosecution failed to bring home the charge beyond reasonable doubt.3. we have perused the entire evidence and we are unable to find any infirmity in the findings arrived at by both the courts below. both the courts after marshalling the evidences of pws 10, 11 and 13 who are eye-witnesses held that the accused assaulted the deceased with the lathi thereby causing the injuries which were found to be sufficient to cause death of the deceased. the courts below have also considered the conduct of the accused when the accused admitted in his examination under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure that on the fateful night, he left his own room where he admittedly lived along with these pws and went to pw 12. the accused stayed with him at night. the accused also told pw 12 that a murder had taken place near about his room and as such he had come to reside with pw 12. of course, pw 12 has deposed in his evidence that the accused made an extra-judicial confession that he caused a murder and therefore he came to stay with him. at any rate this conduct of the accused leaving his room and coming to stay with pw 12 is very significant.4. it is also evident from the depositions of pws 10, 11 and 13 that immediately before the incident the accused came to his room, took out a lathi and went away. all these circumstances clearly lead to the only conclusion that the accused was responsible for giving the fatal blow on the head of the deceased which caused his death.5. considering all these facts and circumstances and also the evidences of these witnesses we have no hesitation to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the courts below do not call for any interference. we therefore, dismiss the appeal and uphold the conviction and sentence passed by the court of appeal below.6. we record our appreciation of the able assistance rendered by the learned counsel mr a.n. mulla assisted by mr prem malhotra, advocate-on-record.