Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 1927
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ.
Deva Dama - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 643 of 2011
Decided On : 16-05-2018
None, for the Appellant; Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary, Public Prosecutor, for the State
The testimony of an injured eyewitness is accorded a special status in law and should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302, 307, 326, 323 I.P.C. - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - EVIDENCE - EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - RECOVERY OF WEAPON - CHAIN OF EVENTS - CORROBORATION - RELIABILITY OF TESTIMONY - INTENTION TO KILL - POSTMORTEM REPORT - INJURY REPORTS - FSL REPORT - ABSENCE OF DEFENCE WITNESSES - UPHOLDING OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the murder of Mangudi and causing injuries to Nathi Bai and Rahul under Sections 302, 307, 326, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, medical evidence, recovery of the weapon used in the crime, and the chain of events.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was consistent and corroborated by the medical evidence, recovery of the weapon, and the chain of events. The court also found that the appellant had the intention to kill the victims, as evidenced by the nature of the injuries inflicted. The court rejected the appellant's defense that he was falsely implicated in the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the appellant was falsely implicated in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was reliable and corroborated by the medical evidence, recovery of the weapon, and the chain of events. The court also found that the appellant had the intention to kill the victims, as evidenced by the nature of the injuries inflicted. The court rejected the appellant's defense that he was falsely implicated in the case.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - In order to expedite hearing of the convicts languishing in jails, the present criminal appeal is listed for hearing today before us in view of constitution of special bench for the purpose of expediting hearing of such appeals.
2. In the instant matter, Amicus Curiae was appointed to assist the Court. The matter was listed on 7.10.2017 but nobody was present on behalf of the appellant, therefore, the matter was adjourned for two weeks. Again 25.11.2017, iearned Amicus Curiae was not present, therefore, the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, again on 16.12.2017, learned Amicus Curiae was not present, therefore, the matter was adjourned.
3. Today, the matter is listed for hearing but learned Amicus curiae is not present. Hence, we are left with no option except to hear learned Public Prosecutor and decide the appeal after taking into consideration relevant record of the case. We do so.
4. The present appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment dated 10.6.2011 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 157/2008 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced for life imprisonment as under:-
| 302 I.P.C. | Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months simple imprisonment. |
| 307 I.P.C. | 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month simple imprisonment. |
| 326 I.P.C. | 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month simple imprisonment. |
| 325 I.P.C. | 3 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment. |
| 323 I.P.C. | six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo seven days simple imprisonment. |
|
| All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently |
5. Brief facts necessary to be narrated are that a complaint was filed on 25.6.2008 to the Station House Officer. Police Station, Jhadol, District Udaipur by one Thawar Chand to the effect that today i.e. on 25.6.2008 at around 10:00 am, his wife Nathi Bai was grazing cattle in the field of Lalu ram S/o Kamji, while she was in the field of Lalu, Deva S/o Bhaira came with an axe in his hand and gave blows on the head of his wife. At the same time, his mother Mangudi and nephew Rahul who were standing in the nearby field came running to rescue his wife. Deca gave axe blows to his mother Mangudi as well as his nephew. In the meantime Ambava Jl S/o Vaisa and Bhaira S/o Vaisa Khokhariya reached the spot and tried to save the injured. Deva ran away from the spot. Thereafter, his brother Kishan telephoned him and on reaching there, his wife told him that all three of them were given axe blows with intention of killing by Deva. All the three injured i.e. his wife Nathi Bai, mother Mangudi and nephew Rahul having injuries on their heads were taken to Jhadol Hospital for treatment. It was further stated in the complaint that due to some old enmity, Deva assaulted injuries to them by axe. On this report, an F.I.R. was registered under Section 307 I.P.C. and investigation commenced. The police investigated the matter and filed challan under Section 302 I.P.C. as Mangudi died during the treatment. The charges were framed against accused-appellant under Sections 302, 307, 325, 326 and 323 I.P.C. On charges having been framed, the accused-appellant denied the same and preferred trail.
6. 19 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and 23 documents were exhibited during the course of trial
