Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajja Harijan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 November, 2021
Author: Atul Sreedharan
1
Cr.A.No.403/2010
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.403/2010
Rajja Harijan
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh
Counsel for the appellant : Shri R.L. Ariha, learned counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent/State : Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, Panel Lawyer
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Atul Sreedharan
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sunita Yadav
******
JUDGMENT
(08-11-2021)
Per : Atul Sreedharan, J.
The appellant is aggrieved by the judgement dated
05/01/2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Mauganj, Distt. Rewa in Sessions Trial No.246/2009. By the said
order, the appellant was found guilty of committing an offence
under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and additional
rigorous imprisonment for three months in default thereof.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant killed his
father. There are three witnesses to the incident who are
Smt.Sukvariya (PW-4), Ku.Reeta @ Rituaa (PW-5) and Chhotuaa @
Rajesh (PW-6). PW-4 is the step-mother of the appellant and PW-5
and PW-6 are the appellant's own children. The case of the
prosecution is that on the date of the incident at about 08:00
p.m., PW-4 had prepared the dinner and was serving the
deceased, the appellant and the two children. The deceased
asked the appellant to have his food upon which the appellant
picked up a stick and belaboured the deceased inflicting injuries
which resulted in his death. PW-4, the second wife of the
deceased and the step-mother of the appellant is stated to have
seen the incident, but in cross-examination she reveals that she
has not seen the appellant inflicting the injuries on the
deceased as she was not there at that time and she came there
after the incident was over. PW-5 and PW-6 are the star
witnesses in this case who are the children of the appellant.
3. PW-5 is Ku. Reeta @ Rituaa. On the date she stood in the
witness box to give her testimony, she was about 12 years old.
In her examination-in-chief, she categorically states that around
07:00 p.m. when her grand-father, whom she refers to as Baba,
asked the appellant to have his food, the appellant started
assaulting the deceased with a lathi. She further says that after
having beaten the deceased with the lathi, he picked up a stone
and threw it on the deceased. She further states that she and
her younger brother tried to intercede upon which the appellant
is stated to have beaten her younger brother who is PW-6 in this
case.
4. The FIR has been registered on the next day of the incident
at around 12:15 p.m. The appellant has been named in the FIR
as the sole accused. The FIR is Ex. P/15. The post-mortem
report of the deceased is Ex. P/10 which reveals 8 injuries out
of which most of them are on the head by the deceased. The
infliction of the injuries resulted in the fracture of the parietal
bone and the cause of death has been given as syncope due to
fracture of the cranium. The Doctor has opined in the post-
mortem report that the death appears as homicidal. PW-5 has
been cross-examined by the defence and in paragraph 6 she
says that her mother passed away a few years back and that the
appellant used to be in a state of depression. Suggestions have
been given by the defence to this witness that she was stating
falsely before the trial court after having been influenced by PW-
4, her grand-mother. The suggestions have been denied by the
witness. The suggestions relating to not having seen the
incident itself, have also been denied by the witness. No
contradiction or omission has been brought out by the defence
by confronting this witness with her 161 statement. In short,
the statement of PW-5 is consistent and has remained
unchallenged by any kind of contradiction or omission. PW-6 is
the son of the appellant who was 9 years old on the day he took
stand. He has reiterated likewise as PW-5 and has given the
time of the incident as 08:00 p.m. He too says that all that his
grand-father told that appellant was to have his food, upon
which the appellant started assaulting his father.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant however has drawn the
attention of this court to Paragraph 12 of the statement of this
witness wherein between he says "मम जज भभ नययययलय मम बतय रहय हह ह वह दयदभ कक बतययक
अननसयर बतय रहय हहह ।". However, on having carefully read that paragraph, we
find that a full stop has been placed incorrectly instead of a comma
and the entire sentence if read in continuation reveals." यह कहनय गलत हह कक
ममनक ककसभ पकयर कय लड़यई झगड़य नहह दकखय जज भभ नययययलय मम बतय रहय हहह वह दयदभ कक बतययक अननसयर बतय
रहय हहह ।". In other words, the error in punctuation makes the latter
sentence appear as an independent statement, whereas it was a
continuation of the previous sentence. The witness has also denied the
suggestion that he has stated against his father only on account of
being tutored by his grand mother and the threat that he would not be
given anything to eat if he does not testify before the court as
suggested by her.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
appellant was of unsound mind and that the defence had moved an
application under Section 311 for the mental evaluation of the
appellant to establish that he was of unsound mind. Learned counsel
for the appellant has submitted that the said application was moved
on the basis of statement of PW-5 in para-6 of her testimony and the
statement of PW-6 in paragraph-12 of his testimony where these
witnesses have said that the appellant used to be in a depressed state
of mind after the demise of his wife.
7. The learned trial court inter alia has dismissed the said
application moved by the defence on the ground that the application
was belatedly moved towards the fag end of the trial, at the stage of
final arguments. Also, no documents were placed along with the
application by the defence to show that the appellant was ever being
treated for any kind of mental disorder.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the
motive has not been proved in this case. He says that the incident
happened abruptly when the appellant, for no good reason, assaulted
and killed his father only because of his father has asked him to have
his meals.
9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted
that the trial court order convicting the appellant for the afore-
mentioned offence is just and proper. He has relied upon the
statements of PW-5 and PW-6 to show that these witnesses are the
children of the appellant himself and they have testified against the
appellant and in cross-examination no contradiction or omission has
been brought about by the defence by confronting them with their 161
statement. Learned counsel for the State further submits that these
witnesses have even rejected the suggestions given by the defence that
they are falsely testifying against the appellant under the influence of
PW-4 and the threat held out by her that she would not otherwise give
them food if the witnesses did not testify against their father. They
even rejected suggestions to the effect that on account of the night
time they were unable to see the incident which resulted in the death
of the grand father. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the
State submits that where the children of the appellant themselves
have consistently spoken against the appellant herein and the
statement rightly inspired the confidence of the trial court.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the trial court. The statements of PW-5 and PW-6 are
consistent on material particulars with little or no abrasions. There is
no reason to disbelieve them as they are interested witnesses closely
related to the appellant being his children and yet have testified
against him. No omission or contradiction has been brought out by
the defence by confronting them with their 161 statements. They have
also rejected suggestions by the defence that they were influenced by
PW-4 the grand mother. Their statements are corroborated by the post
mortem report Ex. P-10. The said report and statement of Doctor in
support thereof reveals that the cause of death was on account of
head injuries suffered by the deceased. The nature of the injuries are
also lacerations and contusions which could be caused by hard and
blunt weapon/instrument. This corroborates the statement of PW-5
and PW-6 that the appellant assaulted the deceased with the lathi.
11. In view of what has been discussed and held by us herein-above,
we feel that the statement of PW-5 and PW-6, eye witnesses to the
incident and who are the children of the appellant herein, are of
sterling quality having witnessed the test of cross-examination and
their statements having being corroborated by the post mortem report,
the guilt against the appellant stands fully established beyond
reasonable doubt. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to
interfere in the present appeal, the appeal is dismissed.
12. However, the dismissal of the appeal need not come in the way
of the State in considering granting remission to the appellant, if in
the opinion of the State the appellant has undergone sufficient period
of the sentence.
13. With the above the appeal is finally disposed of.
(Atul Sreedharan) (Sunita Yadav)
Judge Judge
astha/vkv/-
Digitally signed
by VINAY
KUMAR VERMA
Date: 2021.11.11
14:48:22 +05'30'
