IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment reinforces the principle that prior enmity and the nature of the attack can establish intent in murder cases, leading to a conviction under Section 302 IPC despite arguments for lesser charges.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2019 passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge No.2, Rajgarh District Churu in Sessions Case No. 11/2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the appellant may kindly be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.”

2. The accused-appellant laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Rajgarh, District Churu, in Sessions Case No.11/2016 CIS No.23/2016 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Raju), whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below:

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the counsel for the accused-appellant, are that on 19.12.2015, at around 3:15 p.m., one Kesardevi (deceased) was on her way to pay money towards purchase of milk, when accused-appellant Raju who was with lathi forcefully caught her, upon which Kesardevi yelled for someone to save her, and after managing to release herself from his clutches ran inside the house of one Rajveer Singh (PW.5); the accused-appellant Raju also entered the said house while running behind Kesardevi. Hearing the shouts, complainant Rajkumar, his brother-in-law Kamal Singh, Naresh son of Kesar and Sandeep son of Naresh all ran towards the direction of Rajveer’s house and after reaching, called out for Raju; when at the same time, the accused-appellant attacked Kesardevi with the use of the lathi, whereafter he climbed the baad and ran towards his own house. Though he was chased by the witnesses, however, he was not apprehended by them.

3.1. Thereafter, the victim was taken to Rajgarh Government Hospital, whereupon immediately the victim was referred to Hisar, and while on the way to Hisar, Kesardevi passed away and she was brought back to Rajgarh Hospital, subsequently the information regarding the incident was given to the police and they arrived at the Hospital; at that night, however the report (Ex.P/1) regarding the incident could be given in the morning when deceased’s brother and her parents arrived.

3.2. Thereafter, on the basis of the written report, FIR No. 293/2015 (Ex.P/12) was registered at Police Station, Hameervaas for the offence under Section 302 IPC and after completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused-appellant under Sections 302, 449 and 455 IPC on 06.02.2016, whereafter the trial commenced and the charges levelled against the accused-appellant were explained to him and the same were denied by him, while pleading innocence. During the trial, the prosecution had produced 15 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents for examination; however, no witness or document has been produced in defence.

3.3. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.12.2019, as above.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that there was delay in registration of the FIR since as per the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the police had arrived at the Hospital on the day of the incident itself, yet no FIR was registered by them, but the same was registered on the next day.

4.1. It was further submitted that the deceased had sustained a total of four injuries on her body as per postmortem report (Ex.P/1