1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. J U D G M E N T Jeeva @ Jeeva Singh vs. State of Rajasthan D.B.Criminal Jail Appeal No.751/2003 against the judgment dated 23.6.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Hanumangarh, in Sessions Case No.122/2002. Date of Judgment :: 22nd February, 2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M.TOTLA Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat, amicus curiae, for the appellant. Mr. KR Bishnoi, PP, for the State. .... BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MATHUR,J.) To challenge the judgment dated 23.6.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh, convicting the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and 4/25 of the Arms Act, this appeal is preferred. By the judgment aforesaid, learned trial court sentenced the accused appellant for life term with a fine of Rs.1000/- and to further undergo one 2 year's simple imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and for offence punishable under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, he was sentenced to undergo one year's simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine. The facts relevant for adjudication of this appeal are that on 9.7.2002 at about 10:00 AM on basis of a spot statement given by Ramnarayan son of Gopalram, the Station House Officer of Police Station Peelibanga registered a criminal case and initiated investigation for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 4(1)(b) of the Arms Act. As per the spot statement Ex.P/13, informant Ramnarayan, whose two daughters were married to the sons of deceased Jagdish, was staying with Jagdish from previous night of 9.7.2002. On 9.7.2002 at about 8- 8:30 AM when Jagdish proceeded on a moped to participate in some marriage rituals, the informant was sitting under a tree on a cot. Accused Jeeva then suddenly came out from his house and gave 3-4 sword blows to Jagdish, who fell down. Smt. Vimla wife of Jagdish and Bhagi, daughter of Jagdish who were also watching entire incident, immediately ran towards Jagdish. Assailant Jeeva ran away from the spot but after some time he was caught by Lakhveer Singh, Raju 3 Singh, Chandu Singh etc. As per the spot statement Ex.P/13 Sukhcharan Singh then made a telephone at police station and gave information regarding the incident. After regular investigation the accused was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 4(1)(b) of the Arms Act. The trial court framed the charges against accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. On denial, regular trial was conducted during which 10 persons were examined as prosecution witnesses and 32 documents were exhibited to support the prosecution story. The accused appellant was put forth for examination as per provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the allegations levelled against him. Three documents were exhibited in defence. Learned trial court on basis of the evidence available by relying upon the statements given by eye witnesses and the medical evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant. While assailing validity of the conviction recorded, the contention of learned amicus curiae is that the three eye witnesses PW-3 Ramnarayan, PW-4 Vimla and P-5 Bhagi are not at all reliable and they have given false statements and as such their 4 testimony cannot be accepted. It is also stated that whatever oral evidence given is false in view of the medical evidence available on record. Learned amicus curiae also pointed out certain contradictions in the statements of eye witnesses. While defending conviction recorded and sentence awarded, learned Public Prosecutor urged that present one is a case wherein testimony of eye witnesses in no way can be disbelieved being quite specific and to the point. It is also urged by learned Public Prosecutor that the weapon of offence was immediately recovered by the investigating agency and that was having blood stains. The blood stains available on the sword recovered were of the same group as of the deceased blood group. As per learned Public Prosecutor there was no reason for the eye witnesses as well as other witnesses to make any false statement against the accused appellant. A motive is also available for commission of the offence by accused Jeeva. Heard learned amicus curiae and learned Public Prosecutor and also examined the entire record available. In the present case the incident as stated in Ex.P/13 took place in the morning hours and the same was said to be seen by PW-3 Ramnarayan, PW-4 5 Vimla and PW-5 Bhagi. PW-3 Ramnarayan in specific terms stated that at about 8-8:30 AM when he was sitting outside the house under a keeker tree, deceased Jagdish proceeding on his moped then accused Jeeva came and gave 3-4 sword blows, consequent to which Jagdish fell down and died at the spot. PW-4 Vimla also stated the same facts and in addition to that she also said that Jeeva Singh gave sword blow by standing parallel to the moped and not from the front or behind to that. This witness also said that before proceeding her husband (deceased) had taken tea and breakfast. The third eye witness PW-5 Bhagi stated that at about 8-8:30 AM when her father was proceeding for odhowali dhani, Jeeva Singh gave 3-4 sword blows consequent to which her father died at the spot. She also stated that her father was usually objecting Jeeva for coming to their home under intoxication and for that reason he gave sword blows to her father. She also stated that sword blow was given by standing parallel to the moped and not from front or behind to that. The argument of learned amicus curiae is that as per medical evidence the injury No.1 in no way could have been received from the sides as it is running from frontal bone to junction of parietal 6 bone. It is contended that the eye witnesses in most unambiguous terms stated that the sword blows were given from the side and as such the blow that resulted into injury No.1 remains unexplained. I do not find any merit in the argument advanced. True it is, that PW-7 Dr. Hariom Bansal in very specific terms stated that the injury No.1 could have been received only if a blow would have been given from front side and not by standing left or right to the victim. However, on basis of the statements given by eye witnesses that the sword blow was given from standing to one side to the moped, it cannot be inferred that the face of the deceased too was in front direction at that time. Nothing was asked in cross examination from the eye witnesses regarding neck movement of the deceased. In such circumstances, when the three eye witnesses in very specific terms stated that 3-4 sword blows were given by accused Jeeva Singh to deceased Jagdish, there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony. The other argument advanced by learned amicus curiae is that during postmortem the stomach of the deceased was found empty and as such the statement of Smt. Vimla that her husband had tea and breakfast in morning, is false and as such a person who gave one statement wrong is required to be disbelieved in totality. This argument as a matter of fact is having 7 no force. A minor discrepancy in no way can be a reason to disbelieve the testimony of an eye witness for all purposes. Beside that, PW-4 Vimla said that her husband in morning took tea and breakfast, but she in no way stated that at what hours tea or breakfast was taken. In view of it, the empty stomach of the deceased is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-4 Vimla. On examination of record, we found that the investigating agency during the course of investigation recovered a sword at the instance of accused and that sword was having blood stains, those matched with the blood group of deceased Jagdish. There is no irregularity in the recovery made. No irregularity is also found in remitting recovered material to Forensic Science Laboratory and receiving the same thereafter. In view of whatever discussed above, we do not find any wrong in the judgment impugned whereby the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced. The appeal, therefore, is having no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. ( C.M.TOTLA ),J. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Mathuria KK/ps.