Jai Singh vs The State
1988 Latest Caselaw 170 Del

JUDGMENT

M.K. Chawla, J.

(1) By order dated October 7, 1983, accused Jai Singh was charged to stand trial for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . for having committed the murder of Smt. Badami Devi. on 7.5.1983, at about II.30 A.M. on the roof of house no. 2103/2D, Prem Nagar, Delhi. By the same order, he was further charged for the offence of possession of a knife, a dangerous weapon, punishable u/s. 27 of the Arms Act, which he used for committing the said murder. The accused pleaded not quality and claimed trial.

(2) To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses, out of which three namely, PW4 Raj Rani, PW5 Manorama, and PW6 Sri Kishan are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW-15 Mukti Nath and PW-17 S Davinder Dutt Sharma are the witnesses of the recovery of the weapon of offence (knife Ex. P-l)at the instance of the accused. PW-20, Dr. Meera Sundram was the first to examine Smt. Badami when she was brought to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, her M.L.C. is Ex. PW18/A. PW-13, Dr. P.K. Gupta prepared the death summary report. Smt. Badami died on 8.5.83 at 4 A.M. Dr. Bharat Singh (Public Witness -7) conducted the post-mortem examination on the next day. The remaining witnesses except PW-19, the Investigating Officer, are formal in nature.

(3) In order to appreciate the scope of the arguments advanced before us, it is relevant to keep in mind the broad features of the prosecution case. The accused Jai Singh was residing as a tenant in one of the rooms on the first floor of the house no. 2103/2D Prem Nagar, Delhi. This house belonged to PW-14 Shri Sital Parsad and his wife Smt. Badami (deceased). The accused stayed in the said room for about 2 years. During this period, it is alleged that he used to come back to the house under the influence of liquor. This was not liked by Smt. Badami. On that account, she used to rebuke him at times. Ultimately, the accused was insulted and turned out of the house by Sital Parsad. This was taken ill by the accused who, while vacating the room had threatened Smt. Badami that he would take revenge for the same. The accused started residing in a rented house near the house of Sital Parsad.

(4) The case of the prosecution is that on 7th of May, 1983 at about 11.30 A M. Smt. Badami was spreading washed clothes on the first floor of her house. At that time PW-4 Smt. Raj Rani, wife of the brother of Sital Parsad, who was living in ihe same house Along with other members of her family was talking to the deceased. PW-5 Smt. Manorama, a tenant in the said house, and the son of the deceased PW-6 Sri Kishan were also present on the roof. All of a sudden, accused came to the roof with an open knife in his hand and shouted that he shall teach Smt. Badami a lesson for getting the room vacated by insulting him. Saying so, the accused attacked Smt. Badami and inflicted a number of knife blows, hitting her in the abdomen, hands, chest, fact, etc. Smt. Badami fell down bleeding and the accused ran down the stairs taking the weapon of offence with him. Smt. Raj Rani, Sri Kishan and Smt. Manorama raised alarm on hearing of which some persons from the neighborhood came to the roof. In the meantime, Sital Parsad came from the factory where he was employed and immediately removed Smt. Badami to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and got her admitted.

(5) On receipt of the information from an unknown person in Police Station Patel Nagar, Dd No. 16-A, (Public Witness 19/A) was recorded at 11.50 A.M. A copy of the same was handed over to S.I. Vijay Manchanda for investigation, who Along with Constable Manbir Singh and Brahm Dutt reached the spot. By that time, Smt. Badami bad been removed to the hospital. The S.I. recorded the statement of Smt Raj Rani (Ex. PW4/A) underneath which he made the endorsement PW11/A, and sent the same to the Police Station for registration of the case through Constable Manbir Singh, on the basis of which F.I.R. Pwi I/B under Section 307 Indian Penal Code .was recorded. After leaving Constable Brahm Dutt at the spot, to guard the scene of occurrence, the Sub Inspector himself proceeded to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. He obtained the copy of the M.L.C. from the hospital but was told by the doctor that Smt. Badami was not in a fit condition to make statement. He came back to the spot and lifted the sample of blood and control earth from the scene of occurrence. He also got the site of occurrence photographed and completed other formalities there and then.

(6) On 8.5.1983, the Sub Inspector received the message about the death of Smt. Badami, therefore, the case was converted from Section 307 I.P.C. to the one under Section 302 Indian Penal Code . The Inquest proceedings were carried out and the body was removed to the mortuary. Accused Jai Singh surrendered himself before ihe Court on 9.5 83. At that very time, a request for Police custody remand was moved before the Court which request was allowed. During the Police custody remand, the accused got the weapon of offence recovered in the presence of PW-15,Mukti Nath and PW-7 S.I. Davinder Dutt Sharma. The pant worn by the accused at the time of his arrest which had blood stains was taken into possession. The weapon of offence and the pant were later on sent to the office of the C.F.S.L. for analysis and report. On the receipt of the same, the Sub Inspector completed the investigation and filed the challan in the court.

(7) In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the allegations against him and alleged his false implication. He also took up the plea that PW-6 Sital Parsad had strained relations with his wife as he suspected her having illicit relations with the accused. The accused also stated that he had tried to bring about reconciliation between Sital Parsad and his wife by bringing Smt. Badami Devi from the house of her parents from Jaipur,where she had gone in the month of November, 1982. This was not appreciated by Sital Parsad and on that account, he has been falsely implicated in this case. He examined three witnesses in his defense

(8) The learned lower court after analysing the evidence on record, found substance in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and did not attach any importance to the defense version. He was held guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 127 of the Arms Act. After hearing the arguments on the quantum of sentence, the accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code . and 3 years' R, for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently.

(9) The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence.

(10) The first and foremost submission of Miss Neelam Grover, learned counsel for the appellant, is that out of the three alleged eyewitnesses of the occurrence, PW-5 Smt. Manorama did not fully support the case of the prosecution. The remaining two are the interested witnesses being close relatives of the deceased and, therefore, it was unsafe to rely on their testimony. Her further submission is that the recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused is doubtful inasmuch as the blood found thereon gave no reaction as per the report Ex. PW-19/N, of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. On the same analogy, according to her, the possibility of the Police having foisted the pant (Ex. P-2) on the accused at the time of his arrest cannot be ruled out, as the accused was not expected to continue to wear the same pant for 3-4 days of the occurrence. Lastly, her contention is that the defense set up by the accused has been brushed aside without assigning any reasons.

(11) Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, relied upon the cogent and convincing evidence of the motive for the crime inasmuch as the accused, at the time he was thrown out of the room, had threatened Smt. Badami that he would take revenge for getting the room vacated. He also relied upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses whose presence at the spot is not challenged and the independent evidence of the witnesses of the recovery of the weapon of offence, bringing home the charge. For this merciless killing in which the accused inflicted as many as 20 injuries on the helpless victim with a sharp-edged weapon, be deserves no sympathy.

(12) On the first aspect, it is difficult for us to accept the plea that if a witness is shown to be a relative of the deceased and it is also shown that he/she possibly shared the hostility of the victim toward.s the assailant his or her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated on material particulars. It is well settled that the evidence of such a witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the courts require as a rule of prudence and not as a rule of law, that the evidence of an interested or a relation who is an eye-witness should be scrutinised with care. Once that approach is adopted and the court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witness has a ring of truth, such an evidence ought to be relied upon even without corroboration. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last person to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.

(13) With this caution in mind, we have carefully perused the evidence of PW-4 Smt. Raj Rani and PW-6 Sri Kishan son of the deceased. Raj Rani admittedly is residing in the same house where the deceased Along with her family was staying. Her presence on the roof of the house where the deceased was spreading the clothes at about 11.30 A.M. is natural. Sri Kishan was studying in a school It has come on record that on the day of the incident, because of the strike of the teachers in that school, no classes were being held. Both these witnesses have given a consistent account of the happening. Their evidence is natural, convincing and corroborative in nature. Both these witnesses knew the accused from before as he stayed in one of the rooms of the said house as a tenant for a period of 2 years. There witnesses have not been cross-examined to challenge the identity of the accused or the sequence of happenings leading to the stabbing of Smt. Badami Devi. Their evidence further finds corroboration from the medical evidence showing the number of injuries found on the person of the deceased. We see no reason to discard the evidence of any one of the two witnesses. It is no doubt true that PW-5 Smt. Manorama has not supported the prosecution version through and through and was permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecutor. However, her testimony cannot be rejected outright. We are aware of the proposition that prime facie a witness who makes a different statement at different times has no regard for the truth. However, even this witness does provide corroboration to the prosecution case to the effect that when she came out of the room situated on the roof, where the deceased was spreading clothes. Raj Rani and Sri Kishan told her that accused Jai Singh had run away after inflicting knife injuries. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the prosecution must be held to have proved their case beyond any reasonable doubt and we hold accordingly.

(14) As observed earlier, we find that the medical evidence further lends support to the prosecution version. Dr. Bharat Singh who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Badami Devi found as many as 20 incised wounds on the various parts of her body. According to the doctor, injury no. 11 through which drainage tube had been put into the abdominal cavity was 4" deep and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In the opinion of Dr. Meera Sundram who examined the deceased, and the post-mortem doctor, the injuries were caused by a. sharp-edged object and possibly by knife P-1 or a similar type of weapon. The cumulative reading of the statements of the above said two doctors to our mind successfully link the accused and the weapon of offence used in this case.

(15) The recovery of the knife at the instance of the accused and in the presence of PW-15 Mukti Nath and other police officials is not under challenge. In fact, the evidence of the recovery witnesses is quite convincing. The fact of non-detection of any reaction of blood stains on knife, Ex-P-l seems to be due to time gap. Similar is the case of the pant of the accused which was taken into possession at the time of his arrest after 5 days of the occurrence. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the blood on the pant as well as the knife has been opined to be of human origin

(16) We agree with the conclusion of the learned lower court that the knife Ex. P-l was used in the commission of crime.

(17) The prosecution has led evidence to prove that the accused had the motive to take revenge from Smt. Badami Devi who was instrumental in getting him evicted from the room and throwing out his belongings on the road after insulting him. This is so stated by the eye-witnesses of the occurrence whose evidence has been believed to be correct. This averment, however, has been denied by the accused whose stand is that he himself vacated the room as Shri Sital Sarsad suspected his wife's character because of him. We do not propose to give much weight to this aspect of the prosecution case as it is well settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is held to be worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Sometimes the motive is clear and can be proved but on another occasion the motive is shrouded in a mystery and it is difficult to give clear finding regarding the same. If, however, the evidence of the eye-witnesses is creditworthy and is believed to be true and the court places implicit reliance on the same, there is no necessity to dwell much on this issue. For that reason, we do not propose to give any finding on it. As observed earlier, we have relied upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses.

(18) In answer to the question under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, "Have you anything else to say", the accused stated: "I am innocent. The fact is that deceased Badami Devi had strained relations with her husband Shri Sital Prasad and even she left the house in the month of October, 1982. I brought back Badami Devi from her parents' house in Jaipur in November, 1982 to her husband's house. Shri Sital Prasad always doubted the character of his wife Badami Devi because of me. So I left the house of Smt Badami Devi in January, 1983 and started living in another rented house in the neighborhood. The said Sital Prasad doubted the character of his wife even if I left the house. He was annoyed because of the reason I was living in the neighborhood. Later on I was falsely named in this case at the instance of Sital Prasad."

(19) The accused has not led any worthwhile evidence to prove the above defense. The plea that because of the strained relations between Sital Prasad and his wife Smt. Badami Devi, the offence might have been committed by someone else prima facie seems to be false. In fact, Shri SampatRam(.PW-l),the father of the deceased Smt. Badami. who was summoned on behalf of the accused, probably to prove that he (the accused) had gone to Jaipur to fetch Smt. Badami, has not helped the accused by confirming this fact. The accused had tried to show himself as a good smarten but has miserably failed to come up to that expectation. The other two witnesses only depose that the accused bears a good moral character which is neither here nor there. In fact, the defense set up by him is without any substance.

(20) In the result, we do not find any substance in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.