LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

It is well settled that motive is not of much relevance in a case where the ocular evidence is of such quality as to prove the culpability of the accused beyond doubt. ; the imposition of such heavy fines with such stringent default sentences is not warranted in the case. We, accordingly, reduce the amounts of fine to Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively for the two offences with the default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and three months respectively under each of the two provisions. There is no reason for us to interfere with the judgments of the courts below insofar as the appellants’ conviction is concerned.


                                                NON-REPORTABLE


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 269  OF 2008


      |MANJIT SINGH                              |.....APPELLANT(S)        |
|                                          |                         |
|VERSUS                                    |                         |
|STATE OF RAJASTHAN                        |.....RESPONDENT(S)       |


                                    WITH


                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2008




      |KAMLESH KUMAR & ANR.                      |.....APPELLANT(S)        |
|                                          |                         |
|VERSUS                                    |                         |
|STATE OF RAJASTHAN                        |.....RESPONDENT(S)       |






                                  JUDGMENT


       Aftab Alam, J.
       1.   Criminal Appeal No.269  of  2008  is  on  behalf  of  a  single
       appellant – Manjit Singh.  Criminal Appeal No.270 of 2008 (that came
       to this Court from jail) is on behalf  of  two  appellants,  namely,
       Kamlesh Kumar and Pradhuman Singh @ Paddu who are represented by Mr.
       Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, advocate, nominated as Amicus  Curiae.   Both
       the appeals arise from the same judgment and order of the  Rajasthan
       High Court.  They were, therefore,  heard  together  and  are  being
       disposed of by this common judgment.
       2.   All the three appellants stand convicted under Sections 302 and
       307 read with Section 34 of the Penal  Code.   For  the  offence  of
       murder they are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for  life  and  a
       fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each with the default sentence of five  years’
       rigorous imprisonment.  For the offence of attempt to  murder,  they
       are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and  a  fine  of
       Rs.1,00,000/- each with the default sentence of two years’  rigorous
       imprisonment.  The sentences of imprisonment for the  two  offences,
       however, have been directed to run concurrently.
       3.   The case of the prosecution is based on the  statement  (Parcha
       Bayan) of Hitesh Galav recorded by ASI Champa Lal at Hospital  Baran
       on September 14, 1998 at 11:30 p.m.  The Parcha Bayan – Exhibit  P.4
       gave rise to and it was incorporated in the  formal  FIR  No.211/98,
       Police Station Mangrol.  In his statement before the Police,  Hitesh
       Galav said that on that day at about 9.00 in the  evening  he  along
       with  Hemant  (deceased),  Madhusudan  (deceased)  and  Maharaj  was
       sitting in the Hanumanji Mandir near the Mangrol bus stand.  At that
       time Manjit Singh Rajput, Kamlesh Sharma and Paddu Sardar (the three
       appellants) came there and with a view to kill them  on  account  of
       previous enmity attacked them with knives. The  three  accused  gave
       them repeated knife blows as a result of which  the  three  of  them
       were wounded.  He further said that he had received one knife injury
       on the right side of his abdomen and another  injury  on  the  right
       side under the arm.   One  of  them  (the  accused)  also  made  the
       exhortation to take out the revolver but at  the  same  time  Hariom
       Soni and some other people arrived there.  Parvat  Singh  also  came
       there who lifted them and brought them straight to Mangrol  Hospital
       from where they came to Baran.  He further said that he had received
       injuries on both his hands as well.
       4.   The FIR was initially recorded under Section 307/34 but on  the
       death of Hemant and Madhusudan, Section 302 of the  Penal  Code  was
       also added to the case.   On  submission  of  charge  sheet  by  the
       police, the appellants were tried before the Sessions Judge,  Baran,
       who by his judgment and order dated September  15,  1999  passed  in
       Sessions Case No.132/1998 convicted and  sentenced  them,  as  noted
       above.  The  appellants  preferred  Appeals  [D.B.  Criminal  Appeal
       No.640/1999  (Kamlesh  Kumar),  D.B.  Criminal  Appeal   No.796/1999
       (Manjit Singh) and D.B. Criminal Appeal No.764/1999 (Pradhuman Singh
       @ Paddu)] before the High Court of Rajasthan which were dismissed by
       the High Court by judgment and order dated January 13, 2006.
       5.   These two appeals arise from the judgment of the High Court.
       6.   It will be useful to note, at the outset, the injuries found on
       the person of Hemant and Madhusudan in their respective  post-mortem
       reports (Exhibit 25 and Exhibit 26 respectively).
       7.   Hemant had the following injuries on his person:
                 1.    Stab wound just right to mid line chest at 4th  inter
                       costal space elliptical 3x1 cm. deep to chest cavity.




                 2.    Two stab wounds one on ant. & one on post  aspect  of
                       left shoulder 2x1x1cm.


                 3.    Incised wound 5x2x½ cm. dorsum of left hand on 3rd  &
                       4th inter metacarpal space.


                 4.    Stab wound 3x1x1cm. left thigh lower and other part.


                 5.    Incised wound 3x1x¼ cm. below left ear.

      8.    Madhusudan had the following injuries on his person:

                 1.    Stab wound 4x2cm. x  deep  to  chest  cavity,  trans,
                       elliptical, direction medially & upwards on left side
                       of left chest wall 3” lat. to breast nipple.


                 2.    Two stab wounds 2x1x1cm. on left side of left arm.


      9.    Hitesh Galav who survived the attack after being treated in  the
      hospital for about 10 to 12 days and who was later examined as PW.2 on
      behalf of the prosecution had also received the following injuries, as
      recorded in his injury report Exhibit P-24:-


                       1.    Incised wound 3x2x1cm. Rt. Hand.


                       2.    Stab wound 3x2x5cm. Rt. Lumber area


                       3.     Incised  wound  (two)  4x2  each  2  inch  Lt.
                            forearm.


                       4.    Stab wound 3x2cm. x 2cm. Rt. Chest.

      10.   The post-mortem reports of Hemant and Madhusudan and the  injury
      report of Hitesh  Galav  leave  no  room  for  doubt  that  they  were
      assaulted with knives. The question  now  arises  as  to  whether  the
      injuries that led to the death of Hemant  and  Madhusudan  and  caused
      wounds to Hitesh Galav were inflicted by the three appellants.
      11.   The prosecution  in  support  of  its  case  examined  four  eye
      witnesses, PW.1 Nirmal Dass, PW.2, informant-Hitesh Galav, PW.3 Hariom
      Soni and PW.4 Naresh Galav.  All  of  them  consistently  stated  that
      while Hitesh, Hemant, Madhusudan, Maharaj and Naresh Galav along  with
      few others were sitting in the temple, the appellants came  there  and
      attacked them with knives causing injuries to them.  There  is  hardly
      any inconsistency in the depositions of the  four  eye  witnesses  and
      there is no reason not to accept their testimony.
      12.   However, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,  learned  counsel  appearing
      for the two appellants  in  Criminal  Appeal  no.270/2008  strenuously
      argued that there was a major inconsistency in the deposition of  PW.2
      made before the trial court and  in  his  statement  recorded  by  ASI
      Champa Lal, PW.16 as Parcha Bayan.  Mr. Mehrotra submitted that in the
      deposition before  the  court  PW.2  gave  a  substantially  different
      version of the occurrence.  He  stated  that  he  along  with  Hemant,
      Madhusudan, Maharaj and Naresh Galav were sitting in the  temple  when
      the appellants came there.  Manjit Singh accosted Hemant saying that a
      complaint was lodged against them and they (the three victims  of  the
      assault) too had joined the  group  that  had  gone  for  lodging  the
      complaint.  Saying this, Paddu Singh took out a bottle and hit  Hemant
      on the head with it. They tried to rescue Hemant but at that point  of
      time all the three appellants took out knives and attacked him, Hemant
      and Madhusudan.  Mr. Mehrotra submitted  that  the  same  version,  of
      course, in different words was given by the  other  three  prosecution
      witnesses who were produced in court as eye witnesses.   He  submitted
      that the Parcha Bayan was silent about Hemant being hit  on  his  head
      first by a bottle and then the attack taking place  on  all  three  by
      knives.  Mr. Mehrotra further  submitted  that  a  bottle  with  blood
      stains was actually  recovered  from  the  place  of  occurrence.   He
      maintained  that  this  variation  in  the  two  versions   completely
      discredited the prosecution case and made it liable to be rejected.
      13.   We are unable to agree.  The fact that the assault by the bottle
      on Hemant is not mentioned  in  the  Parcha  Bayan  is,  at  best,  an
      omission and it does not in any way affect the veracity of  PW.2,  not
      to say the other three eye witnesses.  As a matter of fact, in  cross-
      examination a question was put to PW.2 regarding this omission in  the
      Parcha Bayan and he said  that  at  the  time  the  Parcha  Bayan  was
      recorded he was in shock and was being administered intravenous  drip.
      He was, therefore, not in a position to give a detailed account of the
      occurrence and he simply stated about the main assault by knives.
      14.   In any event, the omission in the FIR would  not,  in  any  way,
      affect the depositions of PWs 1, 3 and 4.  Mr. Mehrotra was unable  to
      show that those three witnesses had not mentioned about the assault on
      Hemant by bottle in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the
      Code of Criminal Procedure.
      15.   Mr. Mehrotra next submitted that the previous enmity alluded  to
      by PW.2 related to an incident that was several  months  old  and  the
      incident was too small to lead to such an assault in which two persons
      were killed. It is well settled that motive is not of  much  relevance
      in a case where the ocular evidence is of such quality as to prove the
      culpability  of  the  accused  beyond  doubt.   Moreover,   even   the
      prosecution case  regarding  the  motive  cannot  be  rejected  simply
      because the earlier incident had taken place a few months  before  the
      occurrence.
      16.   On hearing counsel for the appellants and on going  through  the
      materials on record we find that there is ample material on record  to
      support the conviction of the appellants. There is no reason for us to
      interfere with the judgments  of  the  courts  below  insofar  as  the
      appellants’ conviction is concerned.
      17.    We,  however,  find  that  apart  from  the  sentence  of  life
      imprisonment  the  appellants  have  been  punished   with   fine   of
      Rs.2,00,000/- each with default sentence of five years  under  Section
      302 of the Penal Code and additionally a fine  of  Rs.1,00,000/-  each
      with the default sentence under Section 307 of the Penal Code.  We are
      of the view  that  the  imposition  of  such  heavy  fines  with  such
      stringent default  sentences  is  not  warranted  in  the  case.   We,
      accordingly, reduce the amounts of fine to Rs.10,000/- and  Rs.5,000/-
      respectively for the two offences with the  default  sentence  of  six
      months rigorous imprisonment and three months respectively under  each
      of the two provisions.
      18.   The appeals  are  dismissed  subject  to  the  modification  and
      reduction in the amounts of fine.




                                             ………………………….J.
                                             (Aftab Alam)





                                             ………………………….J.
                                             (H.L. Gokhale)
       New Delhi;
       July 25, 2012.