Shiv Ram v. State

evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for parties found guilty accused-appellant of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him for life imprisonment, vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.03.2003. 7- Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order, accused-appellant Shiv Ram has preferred the present appeal through jail which has been placed before us for disposal. 8- We have heard Mr. L.K. Tiwari, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, A.G.A. for the State/respondent and perused the record. 9- Before further discussion, it is pertinent to mention here that post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Satish Chandra was conducted on 20.2.2002 at 1.45 p.m. by Dr. B.P. Kaushik (PW-4), who found 26 ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. The doctor opined that these injuries could have been caused on

19.2.002 at 11.00 a.m. by knife and they are sufficient to cause the death. In the opinion of doctor, age of the deceased was about 35 years. On examination of the dead body of the deceased, it 4 was found to be of average built and rigor mortis was found to be present in all the limbs. Duration time since death was about one to one and half day. The Medical Officer at the end of its report (Ext.Ka.5) opined that the cause of death is shock due to haemorrhage, as a result of ante mortem injuries over neck and chest. 10- The above medical evidence clearly establishes that the deceased Satish Chandra died homicidal and unnatural death. Now the question determination before this Court is whether the accused-appellant Shiv Ram committed murder of deceased Satish Chandra or not. 11- PW-1 Vidya Dutt, Gram Pradhan is the complainant of the case. This witness lodged the F.I.R. with Patwari Talai to this effect that on

19.2.2002 at 11.00 a.m. Shiv Ram committed murder of Satish Chandra in his shop itself by inflicting injuries on his person with knife. On hearing noise, when Ishwari Singh, Umanand (PW- 2) and other villagers reached at the shop of the deceased, Satish Chandra had already been died. On seeing the villagers coming towards the spot, accused Shiv Ram tried to escape, but he was caught hold with the help of villagers. 12- PW-2 Om Prakash @ Umanand and PW-3 Sohan Singh are the eyewitness of the case and they have corroborated the prosecution story as narrated by PW-1 Vidya Dutt (complainant). These witnesses have stated that when they were doing the work at the roof of house of Balbir, they heard the voice of Ishwari Singh, who was carrying cattle, 5 and was saying that Shiv Ram killed Satish. On hearing this voice when they saw downwards, they noticed that accused Shiv Ram was inflicting injuries on the person of Satish with knife. These witnesses have further stated that when they reached at the spot, Satish Chandra had already been died and accused climbed over the electric pole, but he was caught hold with the help of villagers and taken into custody by the villagers. These eyewitnesses were also cross-examined by the defence at length but nothing has come out in their evidence which may create any doubt in their evidence. They have categorically stated in their cross-examination that the distance of roof of house of Balbir from the place of occurrence was 100 mtr. and they themselves saw accused Shiv Ram inflicting injuries on the person of Satish Chandra with knife. 13- The testimony of above eyewitnesses namely PW-2 Umanand and PW-3 Sohan Singh is natural and trustworthy and their presence on the place of incident cannot be doubted. These witnesses are the independent witnesses and they were having neither any intimacy with the deceased or any enmity with the accused Shiv Ram, therefore, there is no reason with them for deposing false evidence against the accused. 14- The statement of above eyewitnesses is further corroborated from the statement of PW-5 Vinod Rawat, Patwari, who earlier investigated the case. This witness has proved the fact that at the time of occurrence the shop of deceased Shiv Ram only was open and other shops were closed and residential 6 houses are also situated far away. 15- The prosecution case is corroborated not only from the testimony of the witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2 PW-3 and PW-5, but from the medical evidence also. PW-4 Dr. B.P. Kaushik, who conducted the post mortem and prepared autopsy report (Ext.Ka.5), found 26 ante mortem injuries on the person of deceased Satish Chandra. This witness opined in his report that these injuries could have been caused on 19.2.002 at 11.00 a.m. with knife and they are sufficient to cause the death. This witness also found on internal examination at the time of post mortem examination that major blood vessels on the right side of neck were cut due to injuries no. 6 and 7 and as per injuries no. 17, 18 and 23, left lung was also cut. This witness has categorically stated that the death of deceased was caused on account of knife injuries on vital parts of the body like neck and lungs. This is also the case of the prosecution that accused Shiv Ram gave blows to the deceased with knife. In this way, the medical evidence fully finds corroboration from the ocular version adduced by the prosecution. 16- The First Information Report in this case has been lodged promptly by the complainant Vidya Dutt (PW-1). The incident was said to have taken place on 19.2.2002 at 11.00 a.m. and F.I.R. of this incident was lodged on the same day at 2.00 p.m. Chick F.I.R. (Ext.Ka.3) shows that distance of police station from the place of incident is about 15 kms. Therefore, the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant (PW- 1) appears to be prompt one as the same has been lodged within 3 hours of the incident. The 7 promptness in lodging the F.I.R. clearly indicates that there was no chance available with the complainant to make out a cock and bull story. 17- Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of accused/appellant argued that there was no motive of commission of crime on the part of the accused and he has been falsely implicated. We do not find any force in the argument advance on behalf of accused-appellant. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Umanand and PW-3 Sohan Singh, eyewitnesses of the case, who saw accused Shiv Ram inflicting injuries indiscriminately with knife on the person of deceased. Further, accused Shiv Ram gave 26 knife blows on the person of deceased, out of them, 2-3 blows were caused by the accused on the neck and the chest of the deceased, due to which major blood vessel and lung of the deceased were cut. However, keeping in view the number of injuries sustained by the deceased and the manner in which the deceased was brutally murdered by the accused, motive becomes irrelevant in the present case and the same is just academic. It is also to be noted here that where there is eyewitness account of the incident, motive does not play any important role. 18- From a plain reading of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, it becomes quite clear that their deposition is consistent on each point and they have not contradicted on material points. We find that in all respects the testimony of these witnesses is natural and trustworthy. Further, the ocular version gets corroboration from the medical evidence also. From the above evidence discussed 8 above, it is proved that deceased Satish Chandra was brutally murdered by the appellant/accused by giving 26 knife blows indiscriminately on the person of the deceased, which is a heinous crime. The prosecution has been fully successful in proving its against appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 19- For the reasons as stated above, we do not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence, recorded by the trial court against accused-appellant Shiv Ram under Section 302 I.P.C. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 20- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 13.3.2003 is hereby confirmed. Accused-appellant Shiv Ram is already in jail. He shall remain in jail in order to serve out the sentence. 21- Let the record be transmitted to the trial court for compliance to be reported to this Court within two months. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 07-06-2010 SP