STATE Vs. HEERA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur by his judgment dated 7-8-1996 has convicted the accused for offences under Ss. 302, I.P.C. and Sec. 4 read with Sec. 25 of the Arms Act. He has passed the sentence of death for the offence u/S. 302 I.P.C. Accordingly, he has submitted the proceedings of the sessions case No. 15/96 for confirmation of the sentence of death to this Court u/S. 366(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The accused has filed the above jail appeal and regular appeal against the above conviction and sentence. All the three matters are, therefore, being disposed of together by this judgment. The prosecution case, as revealed during trial, may be state as follows. Accused Heera Lal, during the relevant time, was residing in double storied house No. 96, East Patel Nagar, Ganeshpur, Ratanada, Jodhpur along with his wife Tara Devi, mother Sukha Devi and minor son Mahaveer, Prem Jangir, PW 6 was running a handicraft unit in the premises adjacent to the house of accused Heera Lal. On the day of occurrence i.e. 25-9-1994 at about 8.00 a.m. Shri Prem Jangir was coming to his handicraft unit. The accused was also doing the business of handicraft and Hathiram Prajapat was employed by him in the above business. Manohardas, PW. 4, used to supply milk to accused Heera Lal. On 25-9-1994, as usual, Manohardas went to supply milk to Heeralal but despite repeated knocking at the door nobody opened the door of the house. Manohardas told about this fact to Prem. When Prem reached the house of Heera Lal, he saw many neighbourers near the house of Heera Lal. Heera Lal was standing on the roof of his house brandishing his naked sword alleged to be stained with blood. The accused was telling about the triple murder committed by him to the people assembled there. He also threatened to kill any person who dared approach him. The F.I.R. of this occurrence Ex. P-34 was lodged by Prem Jangir at Police Station, Udai Mandir on the same day at 8.30 a.m. On receipt of this report, the police registered the case u/S. 302 I.P.C. and started investigation. The Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence immediately. He found Circle Officer Habib Khan and constables Devi Singh, Dalpat Singh etc. there. The Investigating Officer and the above police personnel saw the accused standing on the roof armed with a naked sword. The accused told to the police officers and the people assembled there that he had killed his wife, mother and son and that he would kill anybody who tried to apprehend him. The Investigating Officer inspected the house and noted that the above house has only one main gate and it was bolted from inside. The Investigating Officer asked the accused to surrender but the latter refused to do so and challenged the former that if he tried to arrest him he would not hesitate to commit another murder. The Investigating Officer had no alternative but to break open the door. After breaking open the door, the Investigating Officer Ranveer Singh, ASI Deshraj and other police constable reached the roof and again asked the accused to surrender. The accused paid no heed. The Investigating Officer with the help of the police force overpowered the accused and wrested his sword. The sword was seized. The Investigating Officer found the sword stained with blood and hair. A memo ex. P-3 in respect of breaking open house was prepared. A site plan of the house was also prepared. The Investigating Officer found the dead bodies of Sukha Devi, Taru Devi and Mahaveer lying on the roof of the house in a pool of blood. The above dead bodies bore multiple incised wounds apparently caused by the sword by the accused. The Investigating Officer also called a photographer and photographs of the dead bodies were taken which are Ex. P-20 to P-32. It is alleged that the accused had a temple in his own house and he used to worship goddess Kali. He also distributed religious pamphlets containing his philosophy of life. Pamphelet Ex. P-33 was also seized. From the place of occurrence blood stained soil as also controlled soil were collected and seized. The accused was arrested. While in police custody he made a disclosure statement that at the time of committing the above triple murder he was wearing a chaddi which was stained with blood and that he had concealed the same in an iron drum. The blood stained clothes of deceased Sukha Devi, Tara Devi and Mahaveer were also seized and scaled by the Investigating Officer. The postmortem examination of all the three persons was conducted by Dr. V. K. Malhotra, PW. 24, who was posted as Medical Officer, M. G. Hospital, Jodhpur at the relevant time. He prepared postmortem reports of Mahaveer (Ex. P-87), Tara Devi (Ex. P-88) and Sukha Devi (Ex. P-89) and found antimortem injuries as stated in the reports. According to the Medical Officer, the above persons died as a result of all the above injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is alleged that all the sealed articles, 12 in number, were despatched for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and Virendra Singh PW 3 delivered the same in the Forensic Science Laboratory. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused and the learned Committal Court committed the accused to the Court of Sessions for trial. The learned Sessions Judge framed a charge u/S. 302, I.P.C. against the accused for committing the triple murder of Sukha Devi, Tara Devi and Mahaveer. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Sessions Judge examined in all 26 witnesses as produced by the prosecution. The statement of the accused was recorded u/S. 313 Cr. P.C. He denied to have committed the above murders and further stated that when there is imbalance of mind, he does not remember what he was doing. He does not remember anything about the facts of the case. The accused led no evidence.

(3.) We have heard learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. Detailed arguments were advanced on the merits of the case. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not intend to examine the merits of the case at present. After close scrutiny of the proceedings taken by the learned Sessions Judge, we are inclined to exercise the powers conferred by Sec. 367 Cr. P.C.