JAGAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a remote village, in the silence of the night, the alleged murder of Suresh Kumar by the appellant, forms the background of this appeal. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 6th of August, 2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions judge, Behror, District Alwar, whereby he has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 451 IPC and of offences under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. For the offence under Section 302 IPC, he has been sentenced to life imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and to further undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. For the offence under Section 451 IPC, he has been sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of rs. 1,000/- and to further undergo three months of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof. For offences under Sections 4/25 of the Arms Act, the appellant has been sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and has been imposed with a fine of rs. 1,000/- and to further undergo two months of simple imprisonment in default thereof.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that on 22. 5. 2001, the Police Station, Mandan received a telephonic message at 6. 15 p. m. to the effect that in the night of 21. 5. 2001 at 9. 30 p. m. one, Suresh Kumar, who was sleeping in his house, was stabbed by Jagat singh. Suresh Kumar has expired at the narnaul Hospital. On receiving this information the police reached the narnaul Hospital, where Shri Bhoop Singh (PW1) submitted a written report to the police, wherein he claimed that "in the night of 21. 5. 2001 he and his brother, Dedraj (PW2)were sitting on a cot near their 'chari' in order to protect their animals. Around 9. 30 p. m. , they suddenly heard the screams of his son, Suresh Kumar, who was sleeping in the verand of their house. Upon hearing his screams, he and his brother Dedraj, rushed towards the veranda. There they saw Jagat Singh S/o Jagmal Singh striking his son, Suresh Kumar, with knife blows. When they reached the place, Jagat Singh ran away. A lantern was lit in the veranda. When we reached near the son, we asked him as to what had happened. He told us that Jagat Singh had struck him with knife blows. We raised hue and cry, whereupon jaswant, my wife, Mewa Devi, 'srichand, and Babulal and other neighbours rushed to our house. By jeep, we took our son to the Government Hospital at Narnaul. However, when we reached the hospital, the doctors pronounced my son as dead. There has been an animosity between us and Jagat singh for a very long time. " On the basis of this report, the police registered a formal fir, FIR No. 83/01 for offences under Section 302 and 451 IPC. After completing the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 451 IPC and for offences under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and submitted 39 documents. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant denied the prosecution case and claimed that he was falsely implicated because of the animosity which existed between the complaint party and him. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

(3.) MR. R. K. Mathur, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised various contentions before this court; firstly, that the star witnesses of the prosecution are Bhoop singh (PW1), Dedraj (PW2) and Smt. Mewa devi (PW3 ). However, while Bhoop Singh is the father of the deceased, Dedraj is his uncle and Mewa Devi is his mother. Therefore, all the three witnesses are related/interested witnesses. According to Bhoop singh himself, there is animosity between his family and the appellant. Thus, the appellant has been falsely implicated. Secondly, the false implication is further proven by the fact that although the complainant claims that there was a lantern lit in the veranda, the site-plan (Ex. P. 2) does not show that any lantern was found in the veranda. In fact, no lantern has been recovered by the police during the course of investigation. Moreover, according to the site-plan the place where Bhoop Singh and dedraj were sitting is about 50 yards away from the scene of the alleged crime. Therefore, it is almost impossible for them to cover the distance and to have witnessed the alleged murder. Thirdly, although they are closely related to the deceased, none of them tried to rush to the rescue of the deceased. Therefore, obviously they are not eyewitnesses of the occurrence. Fourthly, although bhoop Singh (PW1) claims that Suresh kumar had told them that the appellant had caused the injuries with a knife, Mewa Devi (PW3) denies the said fact in her cross-examination. Therefore, there are glaring contradictions in the testimonies of the eye-witnesses. Fifthly, that according to the prosecution itself, a telephonic information was received at the police station, yet the same has not been treated as a FIR. No explanation has been given by Onkar Mai (PW15), the Investigating Officer. Since a telephonic information was already received by the police, the written report submitted by Bhoop Singh to the police is hit by Section 162 of Cr P. C. According to the learned counsel, the telephonic information did not reveal the appellant's name as the alleged culprit. Sixthly, that there is an inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. The alleged incident had taken place in the night of the 21st May, 2001 around 9. 30 p. m. , yet the FIR was not lodged till 22. 5. 2001 at 9. 05 a. m. This inordinate delay of twelve hours clearly shows that the complainant had fabricated the story in order to falsely implicate the appellant. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the conviction should be reduced form offence under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC.