Jharkhand High Court
Vikram Singh @ Bikram Singh Son Of ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 September, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 285 of 2017
[Arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated
12.01.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial
No. 500 of 2014 / Sessions Trial No. 382 of 2015]
1. Vikram Singh @ Bikram Singh son of Krishna Singh
2. Beena Singh @ Beena Devi @ Veena Devi wife of Late Nandu Singh
Both residents of Village Beech Bazar G.T. Road, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S.
Govindpur, District Dhanbad .... .... .... Appellants
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellants : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
(For Appellant No.1)
Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Leena Shakti, Advocate
(For Appellant No.2)
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P.
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
Reserved on: 18.09.2024 Pronounced On: 25.09.2024
Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. The appellants are before this Court against
the judgment of conviction and sentence passed under Section 302 of the
IPC for committing murder of Nandu Singh.
2. Informant of the case is mother of the deceased. As per the case of the
prosecution, few days before the incidence, Beena Singh had gone away
after picking up quarrel with her husband (deceased), along with her
children, Rimjhim aged 10 years and Rahul aged 08 years to the house of
Krishna Singh, who was distantly related to her. Beena Singh (A2) had illicit
relationship with Vikram Singh (A1) S/o Krishna Singh, which was not to
the knowledge of the deceased. Deceased has gone to Govindpur to bring
back his wife and children from the house of Vikram Singh, then he came to
know about this. She refused to return with the deceased leading to hot
exchange between them. It is alleged that Krishna Singh, his son Vikram
Singh, his mother and Beena Singh conjointly assaulted him, resulting in his
death.
3. On the basis of the written report, Govindpur P.S. Case No.406/14
was registered against four named accused persons including these
appellants.
4. Police on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge
sheet under Section 302/34 of the IPC. Two separate charge sheets were
filed, one against Vikram Singh and Beena Singh and another against
Krishna Singh and Arpana Singh. They were separately committed and
separate Sessions Cases were registered. Both the cases were amalgamated
and the accused persons were put on trial for offence under Section 302/34
of the IPC. Accused- Krishna Singh and Arpana Singh were acquitted of the
charges and the appellants convicted, against which the instant appeal has
been preferred.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that the
learned trial Court erred in relying on the solitary account of Rimjhim
Kumari (P.W. 5), who was a child witness. It is submitted that child
witnesses are prone to tutoring and she is not wholly reliable as her account
suffers vital contradictions. There is every possibility of her being tutored by
her grandmother as she was living and produced by her before the Court for
evidence. Out of the seven material witnesses examined, there is no other
eye witness. There is a delay of two months in recording the statement of
child witness under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
6. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence.
It is submitted that the deceased died in the house of Vikram Singh, has been
established by the inquest report (Exhibit 2) and by the Investigating Officer
(P.W. 9) in para 5 of his testimony. The house was of Krishna Singh and
Vikram Singh is his son where the dead body was found on a cot drenched
in blood. P.W. 5 is a child witness, but she has given a cogent account of
incidence which remain undemolished in the cross-examination.
FINDINGS
7. Homicidal death of Nandu Singh is not in a shade of doubt in view of
the opinion of the Doctor (P.W. 3) wherein he has deposed that cause of
death was due to hemorrhage and shock caused by hard and blunt force. The
Doctor found the following ante mortem injuries: -
I. Right upper eyelid swollen and black.
II. Abrasion 1" x ¼" on right side of forehead.
III. Swelling bruise on left parietal region of head, 2" x 2" in size.
8. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that P.W. 5 has deposed
that her father has been taken by his mother and Vikram Singh to a fair after
administering him liquor and then he was brought home. Nowhere this
witness has deposed that she had also gone along with them. Therefore, the
testimony that the deceased has been administered liquor, does not stand to
reason. Further, in the post-mortem examination report, there is no reference
of liquor having been found in the stomach. Thus, it falsifies the testimony
of this witness.
9. Law is settled that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more
carefully and with great circumspection because a child is susceptible to be
swayed by what other tell, and that the child witness is easy prey to tutoring.
[See Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 5 SCC 389].
10. Like any other evidence, the testimony of a child witness has to be
appreciated against the background facts and circumstance of the case,
normal course of human conduct and the motive for false implication.
Appreciation of any evidence does not proceed in vacuum and to arrive at
truth it is to be considered against the background facts and circumstance of
a case.
11. As discussed above, homicidal death in the house of Vikram Singh
has been established. It is also an established fact that appellant- Beena
Singh had gone to the house of Vikram Singh and deceased) had gone there
to bring her back. This has come in the testimony of P.W. 2 in para 3, P.W. 4
in para 3 and P.W. 7 in para 3. This part of the testimony is not controverted
in the cross examination. It has also come in evidence that she had gone
there along with her daughter (P.W. 5) and her younger son. These facts
have not been seriously disputed or controverted in the cross-examination.
12. Thus, P.W. 5 becomes a natural witness to the incidence as the dead
body was found at the place where she was living with her mother and her
father had come to bring her back. P.W. 5 has admitted in para 7 of her cross
examination that she had not herself seen her father consuming liquor in the
fair. She has also admitted that her father used to take liquor and had seen
him taking it at home before. In the absence of any medical evidence to
support the consumption of liquor, this part of her testimony with regard to
liquor having been administered to the deceased by the accused persons
cannot be accepted and needs to be discarded. This cannot however be a
ground to discard her testimony in its entirety as falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus is not an accepted part of Indian Jurisprudence. It has to be borne in
mind that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not
contain a grain of untruth at any rate of exaggerations, embroideries or
embarrassments. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinized the evidence
carefully to separate the grain from the chaff. [See Kameshwar Singh Vs.
State of Bihar & Others, (2018) 6 SCC 433].
13. The illicit relationship of appellant no.2- Beena Singh with appellant
no.1 has come in para 9 of the cross examination of P.W. 5 wherein it has
been stated at para 9 that in absence of her father, her mother used to sleep
with Vikram Singh. In para 18, she has stated that she had seen her mother
caught hold of her father's leg and Vikram had caught hold of his head. This
witness has not been confronted with her earlier statement to elicit any
contradiction.
14. This is a case where the oral as well as circumstantial evidence are
loaded against the appellants. Both the types of evidence are not to be
eviscerated, but are complementary to each other and need to be looked into
together to conjure the larger picture of a crime. A-1 has not offered any
explanation to the homicidal death of the deceased in his house, nor any
explanation has come from A-2 who was also present with her husband at
the relevant time. This corroborates the testimony of the child witness that
the appellants were the author of crime. It is to be noted that the child
witness is deposing against none-else, but her mother. In normal course of
human conduct, a child will not testify against her mother unless there is
some truth in it. Her testimony cannot be discarded only because she was
living with her grandmother and was brought to court by her. As discussed
earlier statement of the child witness is duly corroborated by the attending
circumstances.
There is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence
which is accordingly affirmed.
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
Let the trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned
along with a copy of this judgment.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Ananda Sen, J. I agree.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, 25th September, 2024
AFR/Anit
