-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T Sukhdev Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. CRIMINAL JAIL APPEAL NO.108/2003) D.B. CRIMINAL JAIL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 363 CR.P.C. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.1.2003 PASSED BY SPECIAL ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (WOMEN ATROCITIES AND DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT) CASES, SRIGANGANAGAR IN SESSIONS CASE NO.4/2001. *** Date of Judgment :: 19.2.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. Avinash Acharya, Amicus Curiae. Mr. V.R. Mehta, Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE MR.B.KHAN J.) : 1. This Jail Appeal preferred by accused -appellant Sukhdev Singh against the judgment dated 8.1.2003 passed by Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Prohibition Act) cases, Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.4/2001 whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 302 -2- I.P.C. for the murder of his wife and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the prosecution are that on 10.10.2000 at about 6.00 a.m. an oral report was given by Kulwant Singh to the police station, Matilirathan stating therein that his sisters elder one Narendra Kaur and younger one Paramjeet Kaur were married to Sukhdev Singh and Jaspal Singh, both real brothers having their 'kotha'(house) adjacent with a short boundary wall in between. He along with his wife Sarbjeet Kaur used to live in the house of Jaspal Singh. On the intervening night of 9.10.2000 and 10.10.2000, he along with Jaspal Singh were sleeping outside the room and his wife and his sister were sleeping on the terrace. His sister Narendra Kaur and Sukhdev Singh were sleeping in their own room which is adjacent to the room of Jaspal Singh. At about 1.00 a.m., in the night, after hearing commotion and waking up, he along with wife and brother-in-law Jaspal Singh reached in the room of Sukhdev Singh, they found Sukhdev Singh standing near the cot where his sister Narendra Kaur was lying having a neck cut injury, from which blood was oozing out. Seeing them, Sukhdev Singh fled away with 'kasiya'. On this report, police after due investigation submitted a challan under Section 302 -3- I.P.C. against the accused. 3. The accused denied the charges levelled against him under Section 302 I.P.C. and claimed for trial. The prosecution in all produced 10 witnesses and exhibited documents Ex.-P/1 to Ex.-P/28. The accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all the allegation of prosecution witnesses and gave out that he had gone to his sister Pummy's house at Barnala before 4-5 days of the incident. The accused for his alibi produced two witnesses in defence. The learned trial court after analysing the fact and evaluating the prosecution and defence evidence, convicted the accused-appellant for the offence charged and punished him as aforesaid. 4. Both the parties were heard. The entire record was gone through. 5. The learned amicus curiae argued that accused Sukhdev Singh was not on the spot on the day of occurrence as he has produced the reliable evidence about his alibi. The FIR was lodged in the morning whereas the police station is hardly a distance away from the place of occurrence. The accused's wife had been murdered by someone else because of enmity they were having in the village. The accused has no animosity with his own wife, no motive has been assigned for murder. The witnesses are inter-se -4- related with each other and their testimony cannot be believed to involve the accused in absence of independent witnesses. 6. He further argued that the learned trial court has committed error by relying on the oral evidence produced by the prosecution and had ignored the evidence of alibi produced by the accused. The recovery of weapon of offence has also not been supported by the independent witnesses and the same has been recovered from an open place. There are material contradictions in the statement of witnesses produced and there is no eye-witness of the incident. The witness produced do not link the accused with the commission of crime. The impugned judgment of the learned trial court deserves to be set-aside. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that immediately after hearing noise of altercation, the witnesses ran towards the room of accused and found that accused Sukhdev Singh standing having 'kasiya' in his hand near the cot on which injured Narendra Kaur was lying having neck injury, from which blood was oozing out. Immediately, thereafter the accused ran away from the spot. There was none else in the room except Sukhdev Singh and deceased and all have seen Sukhdev Singh on the spot. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these witnesses which cast a slightest doubt about the version given by them. It -5- is true that Jaspal Singh brother of the accused has turned hostile, but still he has supported the presence of rest of the witnesses on the spot at the time of commission of crime. The learned trial court after relying on the corroborative oral version and recovery of 'kasiya' which was found to be blood smeared on its forensic examination, has rightly convicted the accused for murder of his wife. 8. The prosecution has produced three witnesses namely PW-1 Kulwant Singh, who is real brother of deceased Narendra Kaur. PW-2 wife of Kulwant Singh and PW-3 Paramjeet Kaur, real sister of the deceased, who as per their statement during intervening night after hearing an altercation noise when ran towards the room, found the accused standing having 'kasiya' in his hand, near the cot, on which deceased Narendra Kaur was lying having sharp edged injury on her neck, from which blood was coming out. The accused Sukhdev Singh ran away after seeing all these persons. It is true that Jaspal Singh, real brother of the accused has been declared hostile but his statement also proves that at the time of commission of crime he along with all, the witnesses were in his house and when they all reached in the room of Sukhdev Singh as per statement of Jaspal Singh. Narendra Kaur was lying on the cot having neck injury. Sukhdev Singh was not found as he had gone to his sister. The statement of Jaspal Singh along with all above three -6- if scrutinized then, only inevitable conclusion is that all the witnesses after hearing commotion in the room of Sukhdev Singh, reached in the room of Sukhdev Singh and found that accused was standing near the cot having 'kasiya' in his hand and the deceased was having a sharp edged injury on her neck from which blood was coming out. They tried to talk to her but no reply was received. There is nothing in the cross- examination of these witnesses which cast any doubt about their version. Immediately, after the commission of offence that all reached on the spot immediately and found accused standing near the deceased having sharp edged weapon in his hand. Both rooms of Sukhdev Singh and Jaspal Singh are attached and the witnesses' presence in the house of Jaspal Singh is most normal and plausible. There is no enmity of the witnesses with the accused so as to allow them to implicate falsely. The witnesses are related to the deceased as well as to the accused. Even the brother of the accused has also corroborated the presence of the witnesses in the house. When there is nothing to contradict the oral testimony which inspire confidence, reliance can very well be given to the statement which links the accused with the commission of crime. 9. About the alibi of the accused on the day of occurrence DW-2 Paramjeet Kaur has been produced, who has stated that Sukhdev Singh came to her village and -7- stayed over there 4-5 days. Her brother Gurdev Singh telephoned her to send Sukhdev Singh to his village. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that on which day Sukhdev Singh came to stay with her, she cannot say. Gurdev Singh, who rang her was not produced. Simple alibi cannot absolve the accused from the commission of the offence when there are trustworthy corroborative oral evidence involving the accused in the commission of crime. False alibi if taken ultimately becomes adverse to the accused and can lead to presumption if not conclusion that the accused was on the spot on the day and place of occurrence. The defence version is false. Coupled with this, the oral evidence prove the total involvement of the accused in the commission of crime. 10. The weapon of offence which was recovered at the instance of the accused through Ex.-P/3 was found to be blood smeared vide Ex.-P/7 report of forensic laboratory. The postmortem report Ex.-P/28 also reveals that deceased Narendra Kaur died after having received incised wound on her neck. The said report Ex.-P/20 was given by Dr. Rajkumar, who has specifically asserted that all three injuries received by Narendra Kaur were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 11. From the above discussion, it is well proved that deceased Narendra Kaur received sharp edged -8- injury inflicted by the accused, who was with Narendra Kaur in the room at the time of commission of offence. The injuries on the vital part of the body is on the neck, were not given by accident, but with an intention to cause the same. The injuries were found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, since eye-witness's account does not suffer from any infirmity. No other inference can be drawn except that the accused inflicted these injuries on the neck of the deceased intending to murder. The offence of murder against the accused is proved beyond doubt. The conviction of the accused by the trial court is correct and no interference is warranted. Resultantly, the appeal preferred by accused- appellant Sukhdev Singh lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The accused is in jail and he will serve out the remaining part of his sentence. (BHANWAROO KHAN) J. (PRAKASH TATIA) J. RM/-