State of Rajasthan Vs. Laxman Singh & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 997 of 1999
Petitioner: State of Rajasthan
Respondent: Laxman Singh & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 997 of 1999
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 01, 2002
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 302, 364 – Murder – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Validity – Deceased found dead after being kidnapped – Trial court convicting accused persons for offences under sections 302, 364 – Prosecution case founded on circumstantial evidence – High Court setting aside conviction under section 302 while maintaining conviction under section 364 – High Court proceeding on the assumption that external injury found on the body of the deceased could not have been caused by blunt weapons – Findings based on independent assessment of evidence on record – Whether acquittal justified. Held, circumstantial evidence established that accused persons assaulted the deceased and took him away in a truck and within an hour body of victim found lying on the public highway. Evidence of doctor showed that death took place on account of shock due to incise wounds. No explanation given by accused as to what happened to the deceased after kidnap. High Court erred in not discussing circumstantial evidence and disbelieving evidence of the doctor. Judgment of High Court set aside and judgment of trial court convicting the accused restored.
Cases Reffered:
1. Suresh v. State of U.P. (1981 (2) SCC 569) (Para 9)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. State of Rajasthan filed this appeal assailing the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur bench) in D.B. criminal appeal 460 of 1995 in which the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court convicting the accused, respondents herein under section 302 IPC. The respondents were charged under sections 364 and 302 IPC for kidnapping Bachhu Singh and for causing his death. The trial court found the respondents guilty of both the charges; convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment on the former count and life-imprisonment on the latter count. The High Court while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the respondents under section 364 IPC, set aside the judgment of the trial court in respect of the charge under section 302 IPC. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:
“Our independent analysis of the evidence on the record coupled with the infirmities which we have noticed above has created an impression on our minds that the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt to each of the appellants under section 302 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court therefore, was not right in convicting them under the said section. But guilt under section 364 IPC has been fully established against the accused appellants and the accused appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced under this section.
In the ultimate analysis the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to accused appellants under section 302 IPC stand set aside and they are acquitted from the said charge. But conviction and sentence of the accused appellants Lakihan, Laxman and Machhar @ Mahes under section 364 IPC are maintained and stand confirmed.”
2. The incident took place on 20.8.94 at about 10.00 p.m. when the three respondents came in trucks, caught hold of Bachhu Singh (deceased), assaulted him with iron rod and tyre lever and took him away in the truck declaring that they would kill him. The enmity of the respondents against Bachhu Singh was on account of his alleged intimacy with wife of the accused Lakhan Singh. Mohan Singh, brother of Bachhu Singh rushed to the police station at Sewar and lodged a report about kidnapping of his brother Bachhu Singh. When he was still at the police station a wireless message was received at the police station at about 11.15 p.m. that a dead body was lying on the road close-by. When the police officer accompanied by the informant reached the spot the latter identified the body to be that of his brother Bachhu Singh. The body had several external injuries (incised wounds) on the parietal region. There were also marks on the body indicating that the deceased had been crushed under a truck on account of which internal organs like spleen and liver etc. were crushed. The police officer sent the body for post mortem examination, held investigation in the matter, seized blood stained earth from the spot and on completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet under sections 364 and 302 IPC against the respondents.
3. The respondents denied their involvement in the incident and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses, including eye witnesses to the occurrence PWs 1, 2, 3 and 6 relating to kidnapping of Bachhu Singh, and Dr. Suresh Bansal PW7 who conducted autopsy on the body. However, there was no direct evidence regarding the charge of murder, the prosecution depended on circumstantial evidence to establish the charge.
5. The learned trial judge on appreciation of the evidence on record accepted the prosecution case and held the accused guilty of both the charges and convicted and sentenced them, as noted earlier. The High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused persons to the extent noted above. Hence, the appeal by the state.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the High Court clearly erred in interfering with the judgment of the trial court relating to the charge under section 302 IPC. Elucidating the point, the learned counsel submitted that having accepted the prosecution case relating to the charge under section 364 IPC and having held the accused persons guilty of the said charge the High Court, in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case, should have confirmed the judgment of the trial court in toto and should have held the accused persons guilty of the charge under section 302 IPC also. The learned counsel laid stress on two aspects of the matter, that it was clear from the evidence of the eye witnesses that the accused persons had caught hold of Bachhu Singh, assaulted him and removed him in a truck declaring that they will kill him as he was found in the company of the wife of accused Lakhan Singh. Within an hour thereafter the dead body was found lying on the public highway with multiple external and internal injuries; that the accused persons had not offered any explanation what they did to Bachhu Singh after kidnapping him from the place of occurrence. Learned counsel further contended that the chain of circumstantial evidence available on record leads to the reasonable conclusion and the only conclusion of guilt of the accused persons under section 302 IPC. The learned counsel pointed out from the evidence of the doctor that the injuries found on the parietal region of the body of Bachhu Singh were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death of the person.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously urged that the judgment of the High Court is based on independent assessment of the evidence on record which the appellate court was entitled to do. On such assessment the High Court did not accept the part of the prosecution case leading to the charge under section 302 IPC. Absence of any explanation on the part of the accused persons, according to the learned counsel, is not relevant since the prosecution failed to establish that Bachhu Singh was in custody of the accused persons throughout the period after he was taken from the place of occurrence till the dead body was found lying on the highway.
8. On the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties the question that arises for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was right in interfering with the part of the judgment of the trial court convicting accused respondents of the charge under section 302 IPC. As noted earlier, this part of the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence only. The main circumstances which are patent from the evidence on record are; (1) the accused persons had caught hold of Bachhu Singh, assaulted him with iron rod and tyre lever and removed him in a truck driven by one of the accused Machhar Singh declaring that they will kill him; (2) the dead body was recovered lying on the public highway within a short time the incident took place at about 10.00 p.m. and information of death of Bachhu Singh was received by the police at about 11.15 p.m.; (3) Dr. Suresh Bansal clearly and categorically stated that the death took place on account of shock due to the incised wounds on the parietal region and such injuries could be inflicted by blunt weapons like iron rod and tyre lever. There is no other evidence from which it can be reasonably inferred that the doctor’s evidence to this effect is not acceptable. (4) total absence of any explanation on the part of the accused persons as to what they did to Bachhu Singh after they kidnapped him and till recovery of the dead body. In this case, it has been concurrently held by the courts below that the accused persons kidnapped Bachhu Singh in the manner discussed earlier. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly and, in our view rightly, did not challenge the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. In that view of the matter, there is little scope for doubt that the circumstances leading to the death of Bachhu Singh point towards the culpability of the accused respondents in whose custody he was seen last. Coupled with it is the medical evidence that the ante-mortem injuries found on the parietal region of Bachhu Singh could be caused by the weapons like iron rod, tyre lever which were recovered in pursuance of the statements made by some of the accused persons from the truck and such injuries were sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course.
9. From the discussion in the judgment of the High Court, it appears that the court based its finding of acquittal of the charge under section 302 IPC mainly on the assumption that the external injuries found on the parietal region of the Bachhu Singh could not have been caused by blunt weapons like iron rod and tyre lever. No reason has been given by the High Court for not accepting the evidence of the doctor. Dr. Bansal stated in his evidence that his opinion was based on the authority of Modi’s medical jurisprudence that incised wounds may also be caused by blunt weapons. This view has also been accepted by this Court in the case of Suresh v. State of U.P.1 :
“There is one more argument which requires to be dealt with, namely, that two different weapons and the same two weapons were used against both Geeta and the appellant. We are not quite sure whether Geeta had received any incised injury because, the injuries which were found on her forehead can give the appearance of incised injuries, if caused by an iron rod. The skin just above a hard surface can break by a severe blow and give the appearance of an incised injury. But even assuming that the same two weapons were used on Geeta as also the appellant, it does not militate against the commission of the crime by the appellant himself. It is clear from the evidence of Dr. Guha and Dr. Sharma that all the injuries on the person of both Geeta and the appellant were on the front portions of their respective bodies. It is also clear that the injury which resulted in the death of Geeta as also her son Anil was caused by the iron rod. We are inclined to the view that the weapons with which Geeta was defending herself at different stage of her life-saving fight with the appellant were snatched by the appellant and he hit her with those weapons. That is how similar injuries were found on the person of both.”
Further, it is stated in the judgment of the High Court that its findings are based on independent assessment of the evidence on record, but the court has not discussed the circumstantial evidence on record nor made any observations relating to them. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the judgment of the High Court allowing the appeal in part and acquitting the accused respondents of the charge under section 302 IPC is unsustainable.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused persons under section 302 IPC is set aside and the judgment passed by the trial court is restored. The respondents shall be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of the sentence in terms of the judgment and order of the trial court.
1. State of Rajasthan filed this appeal assailing the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur bench) in D.B. criminal appeal 460 of 1995 in which the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court convicting the accused, respondents herein under section 302 IPC. The respondents were charged under sections 364 and 302 IPC for kidnapping Bachhu Singh and for causing his death. The trial court found the respondents guilty of both the charges; convicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment on the former count and life-imprisonment on the latter count. The High Court while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the respondents under section 364 IPC, set aside the judgment of the trial court in respect of the charge under section 302 IPC. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:
“Our independent analysis of the evidence on the record coupled with the infirmities which we have noticed above has created an impression on our minds that the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt to each of the appellants under section 302 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court therefore, was not right in convicting them under the said section. But guilt under section 364 IPC has been fully established against the accused appellants and the accused appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced under this section.
In the ultimate analysis the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to accused appellants under section 302 IPC stand set aside and they are acquitted from the said charge. But conviction and sentence of the accused appellants Lakihan, Laxman and Machhar @ Mahes under section 364 IPC are maintained and stand confirmed.”
2. The incident took place on 20.8.94 at about 10.00 p.m. when the three respondents came in trucks, caught hold of Bachhu Singh (deceased), assaulted him with iron rod and tyre lever and took him away in the truck declaring that they would kill him. The enmity of the respondents against Bachhu Singh was on account of his alleged intimacy with wife of the accused Lakhan Singh. Mohan Singh, brother of Bachhu Singh rushed to the police station at Sewar and lodged a report about kidnapping of his brother Bachhu Singh. When he was still at the police station a wireless message was received at the police station at about 11.15 p.m. that a dead body was lying on the road close-by. When the police officer accompanied by the informant reached the spot the latter identified the body to be that of his brother Bachhu Singh. The body had several external injuries (incised wounds) on the parietal region. There were also marks on the body indicating that the deceased had been crushed under a truck on account of which internal organs like spleen and liver etc. were crushed. The police officer sent the body for post mortem examination, held investigation in the matter, seized blood stained earth from the spot and on completion of the investigation filed charge-sheet under sections 364 and 302 IPC against the respondents.
3. The respondents denied their involvement in the incident and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses, including eye witnesses to the occurrence PWs 1, 2, 3 and 6 relating to kidnapping of Bachhu Singh, and Dr. Suresh Bansal PW7 who conducted autopsy on the body. However, there was no direct evidence regarding the charge of murder, the prosecution depended on circumstantial evidence to establish the charge.
5. The learned trial judge on appreciation of the evidence on record accepted the prosecution case and held the accused guilty of both the charges and convicted and sentenced them, as noted earlier. The High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused persons to the extent noted above. Hence, the appeal by the state.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the High Court clearly erred in interfering with the judgment of the trial court relating to the charge under section 302 IPC. Elucidating the point, the learned counsel submitted that having accepted the prosecution case relating to the charge under section 364 IPC and having held the accused persons guilty of the said charge the High Court, in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case, should have confirmed the judgment of the trial court in toto and should have held the accused persons guilty of the charge under section 302 IPC also. The learned counsel laid stress on two aspects of the matter, that it was clear from the evidence of the eye witnesses that the accused persons had caught hold of Bachhu Singh, assaulted him and removed him in a truck declaring that they will kill him as he was found in the company of the wife of accused Lakhan Singh. Within an hour thereafter the dead body was found lying on the public highway with multiple external and internal injuries; that the accused persons had not offered any explanation what they did to Bachhu Singh after kidnapping him from the place of occurrence. Learned counsel further contended that the chain of circumstantial evidence available on record leads to the reasonable conclusion and the only conclusion of guilt of the accused persons under section 302 IPC. The learned counsel pointed out from the evidence of the doctor that the injuries found on the parietal region of the body of Bachhu Singh were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death of the person.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously urged that the judgment of the High Court is based on independent assessment of the evidence on record which the appellate court was entitled to do. On such assessment the High Court did not accept the part of the prosecution case leading to the charge under section 302 IPC. Absence of any explanation on the part of the accused persons, according to the learned counsel, is not relevant since the prosecution failed to establish that Bachhu Singh was in custody of the accused persons throughout the period after he was taken from the place of occurrence till the dead body was found lying on the highway.
8. On the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties the question that arises for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was right in interfering with the part of the judgment of the trial court convicting accused respondents of the charge under section 302 IPC. As noted earlier, this part of the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence only. The main circumstances which are patent from the evidence on record are; (1) the accused persons had caught hold of Bachhu Singh, assaulted him with iron rod and tyre lever and removed him in a truck driven by one of the accused Machhar Singh declaring that they will kill him; (2) the dead body was recovered lying on the public highway within a short time the incident took place at about 10.00 p.m. and information of death of Bachhu Singh was received by the police at about 11.15 p.m.; (3) Dr. Suresh Bansal clearly and categorically stated that the death took place on account of shock due to the incised wounds on the parietal region and such injuries could be inflicted by blunt weapons like iron rod and tyre lever. There is no other evidence from which it can be reasonably inferred that the doctor’s evidence to this effect is not acceptable. (4) total absence of any explanation on the part of the accused persons as to what they did to Bachhu Singh after they kidnapped him and till recovery of the dead body. In this case, it has been concurrently held by the courts below that the accused persons kidnapped Bachhu Singh in the manner discussed earlier. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly and, in our view rightly, did not challenge the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. In that view of the matter, there is little scope for doubt that the circumstances leading to the death of Bachhu Singh point towards the culpability of the accused respondents in whose custody he was seen last. Coupled with it is the medical evidence that the ante-mortem injuries found on the parietal region of Bachhu Singh could be caused by the weapons like iron rod, tyre lever which were recovered in pursuance of the statements made by some of the accused persons from the truck and such injuries were sufficient to cause death of a person in ordinary course.
9. From the discussion in the judgment of the High Court, it appears that the court based its finding of acquittal of the charge under section 302 IPC mainly on the assumption that the external injuries found on the parietal region of the Bachhu Singh could not have been caused by blunt weapons like iron rod and tyre lever. No reason has been given by the High Court for not accepting the evidence of the doctor. Dr. Bansal stated in his evidence that his opinion was based on the authority of Modi’s medical jurisprudence that incised wounds may also be caused by blunt weapons. This view has also been accepted by this Court in the case of Suresh v. State of U.P.1 :
“There is one more argument which requires to be dealt with, namely, that two different weapons and the same two weapons were used against both Geeta and the appellant. We are not quite sure whether Geeta had received any incised injury because, the injuries which were found on her forehead can give the appearance of incised injuries, if caused by an iron rod. The skin just above a hard surface can break by a severe blow and give the appearance of an incised injury. But even assuming that the same two weapons were used on Geeta as also the appellant, it does not militate against the commission of the crime by the appellant himself. It is clear from the evidence of Dr. Guha and Dr. Sharma that all the injuries on the person of both Geeta and the appellant were on the front portions of their respective bodies. It is also clear that the injury which resulted in the death of Geeta as also her son Anil was caused by the iron rod. We are inclined to the view that the weapons with which Geeta was defending herself at different stage of her life-saving fight with the appellant were snatched by the appellant and he hit her with those weapons. That is how similar injuries were found on the person of both.”
Further, it is stated in the judgment of the High Court that its findings are based on independent assessment of the evidence on record, but the court has not discussed the circumstantial evidence on record nor made any observations relating to them. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the judgment of the High Court allowing the appeal in part and acquitting the accused respondents of the charge under section 302 IPC is unsustainable.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused persons under section 302 IPC is set aside and the judgment passed by the trial court is restored. The respondents shall be taken into custody to undergo the remaining part of the sentence in terms of the judgment and order of the trial court.
