1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. J U D G M E N T Raju @ Rajkumar vs. State of Rajasthan D.B.Criminal Appeal No.1313/2003 against the judgment dated 10.9.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh, in Sessions Case No.27/2003. Date of Judgment :: 11th May, 2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M.TOTLA Mr. RS Choudhary, for the appellant. Mr. KR Bishnoi, PP, for the State. .... BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MATHUR,J.) By judgment impugned dated 10.9.2003, learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh convicted the accused appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under:- 2 U/s.302 IPC : Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. U/s.201 IPC : Seven years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of present appeal is that a telephonic information regarding killing of Vinod Kumar Jat by Raju Punia was received at police station Goluwala at 01:00 PM on 28.11.2002. The information aforesaid was recorded in daily diary and a police team led by Station House Officer Kailash Dan proceeded for the spot of occurrence. At the spot, a written report was submitted by PW-5 Prakash Chandra with assertion that at 08:00 PM in the night of 27.11.2002, Raju son of Ratiram Punia came to his house with whom his son Vinod went out. While going out, informant Prakash Chandra instructed his son to return expeditiously. However, looking to the fact that Vinod did not return upto 10:00 PM, informant Prakash Chandra alongwith his two brothers made search of Vinod in village and while doing so Omprakash son of Surjaram and Rajendra son of Puranram informed that Vinod and Raju Punia were quarreling and during that quarrel Raju Punia stated that he will kill and burn Vinod. In next morning, Dhannaram Khati and Banwarilal 3 Jat came to the informant and stated that Raju Punia came to them and confessed that he has murdered Vinod, burnt the dead body and burried the same in a trench behind his house. On getting this information the informant, his brothers and several other villagers went to the spot, whereon after removing freshly poured soil, they found burned dead body of a person, identified as Vinod. Acting upon the report aforesaid, a case under Section 302 and 201 IPC was registered, regular investigation was made, a charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the court of Sessions being exclusively triable by it. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and on denial of the same accused was tried. The prosecution substantiated its case with the aid of 10 witnesses and 56 documents. The accused was examined as per the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied whatever circumstance appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and also pleaded his innocence. The accused also stated that the house and other place wherefrom recovery is shown was not under his possession and he is not at all related to those places. The documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/4 were also exhibited in defence. 4 The trial court, after considering the entire evidence available on record, held the accused appellant guilty for the charges levelled against him and sentenced accordingly. In appeal, the contention of counsel for the appellant is that the instant one is a case wherein the incident is not at all supported by any eye witness and the circumstances on which trial court relied are not adequate for conviction. It is urged that the trial court failed to appreciate that the house wherefrom recoveries were made was not under possession of the accused and the accused in quite unambiguous terms pointed out this fact before the trial court while tendering his explanation as per provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is also urged that the prosecution tried to hide important and relevant facts by not producing material evidence before the court. On the other hand, as per learned Public Prosecutor adequate evidence is available on record to form a complete chain of circumstances, indicating towards only one consequence i.e. commission of the crime concerned by the present accused. It is asserted that the evidence relating to last seen, extra judicial confession, recovery of certain articles including the weapon of offence, matching of blood stains and burn injuries on the hands of the accused 5 himself are sufficient to establish the guilt and thus the trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. We have considered the rival arguments and also scrutinised the entire record. PW-2 Dr. S.P.Singh conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Vinod Kumar, thus, proved the postmortem report Ex.P/15, as per which the cause of death of Vinod was neck, chest and liver injuries resulting into shock and haemorrhage and also the cardiorespiratory arrest. In the postmortem report several antemortem injuries were found and it was also opined that the body was burnt postmortem. In view of the postmortem report there is no doubt about homicidal death of Vinod. PW-2 Dr. S.P.Singh also examined injuries found with accused Raju Punia at the time of his arrest, thus, also proved the injury report Ex.P/16. As per Ex.P/16 accused Raju @ Rajkumar was having following injuries:- (i) Burn with blister Ms. 2.0 x 0.5 cm x deep upto epidermis on lesser eminence of right palm. (ii) Burn with blister formation Ms. 10 x 0.5 x epidermis deep on greater eminence of right palm. 6 (iii) Burn with blister formation Ms. 1.5 x 0.8 x epidermis deep on left wrist anteriorly. PW-10 Shri Kailash Dan, the Station House Officer, Police Station Goluwala, narrated all the facts relating to the steps taken during the course of investigation being the investigating officer. As per this witness, accused Raju @ Rajkumar was arrested as per arrest memo Ex.P/37 and at the time of arrest accused was having certain burn blisters. He also stated that the accused was wearing a blood stained brief which was seized as per seizure memo Ex.P/38. According to this witness a 'gandasi' and an iron pipe were also recovered at the instance of the accused as per recovery memo Ex.P/40. A blood stained 'kassi' was also recovered at the instance of accused as per recovery memo Ex.P/41. The seized and recovered articles were sent for their serological examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jodhpur, a report of that is available on record as Ex.P/55. As per Ex.P/55, the underwear of the accused, the iron pipe recovered at the instance of accused and shirt and banian of deceased were found to be stained with “A” group of blood. The 'gandasi', blood smeared soil, a rope and a red cloth piece seized from the spot of occurrence too were found stained with blood of human origin. 7 With the medical and scientific evidence discussed above, the other evidence available on record requires examination fro adjudicating the appeal in hand. PW-5 Prakash Chandra is father of deceased Vinod Kumar. As per this witness, Vinod went out from the house with Raju, the accused. This witness also stated that he alongwith his brothers went to make search of Raju when he did not return to home upto 10:00 PM. According to PW-5 Prakash Chandra, during the course of search Rajendra and Omprakash met to him and they informed about some quarrel taken place between the deceased and the accused. PW-6 Prithvi Raj, real brother of PW-5 Prakash Chandra, too stated the same facts being accompanying PW-5 Prakash Chandra while making search of Vinod. PW-7 Omprakash stated that in the night of 27.11.2002 he alongwith Rajendra saw Vinod and Raju Punia quarreling on way. As per this witness during the course of quarrel Raju threatened to kill and burn Vinod. An another important witness PW-8 Banwarilal deposed that in the morning of 28.11.2002 at about 08:30-08:45 AM Raju @ Rajkumar came to him and at that 8 time accused was looking quite frightened. As per this witness, accused made a request to save him as he killed Vinod Kumar, burned and then burried the body behind his house. At the time of making such confession, as per PW-8 Banwarilal, one Dhannaram too was present. The argument of counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution intentionally not produced Rajendra who is said to be present with Omprakash in the night of 27.11.2002 and Dhannaram who was present with Banwarilal in the morning of 28.11.2002. On asking, learned counsel failed to satisfy us as to how their non-production is having any material bearing in disbelieving the prosecution case. It is also urged by counsel for the appellant that the recoveries made should be disbelieved as the prosecution failed to establish possession of the accused at the place wherefrom the recoveries were made. We are not at all impressed with this argument too. The recoveries were made on basis of disclosure statement made by the accused and the same are adequately substantiated by the independent witnesses present at the time of effecting recovery. No explanation as a matter of fact is given by the accused for having burn injuries on his hand and also availability of blood stains of “A” group on his brief. 9 As a matter of fact in the case in hand the prosecution quite meticulously framed a chain of circumstances which leads towards only one conclusion i.e. definite involvement of the accused in the crime concerned. As per PW-5 Prakash Chandra on 27.11.2002 at about 08:00 PM accused came to his house with whom deceased Vinod went out. A search was made subsequent thereto by Prakash Chandra alongwith his brothers during which he met to Omprakash and Rajendra. Whatever stated by PW-5 Prakash Chandra is corroborated by PW-6 Prithvi Raj. Before PW-5 Prakash Chandra and PW-6 Prithvi Raj, Omprakash and Rajendra stated that Raju Punia was quarreling with Vinod and also threatened him for killing, and then burning. PW- 7 Omprakash in quite unambiguous terms substantiated the prosecution story with a definite statement that he saw Raju Punia the accused quarreling with deceased Vinod and also that Raju threatened to kill Vinod and to burn thereafter. PW-8 Banwarilal further joins the chain of circumstances by stating that Raju Punia came to him and confessed about commission of crime concerned. The statements given by the witnesses aforesaid and other evidence relating to recovery of blood stained 'kassi', 'gandasi', iron pipe, underwear and 10 availability of burn blisters on the hands of the accused at the time of arrest strengthens the prosecution story. As a matter of fact all the circumstances discussed above cumulatively indicate the absolute involvement of the accused in the offence for which he has been convicted by the trial court. We do not find any breakage of the circumstances creating even a minute doubt in involvement of the accused with the crime in question. The trial court, thus, has not committed any error while convicting and sentencing the accused appellant. The appeal, thus, is having no merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed. ( C.M.TOTLA ),J. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Mathuria KK/ps.