STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. GULAB SINGH AND ORS

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 649

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM

Case summary

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. GULAB SINGH AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 10 S. C. R. 649 ) STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. GULAB SINGH AND ORS. ' (Criminal Appeal No. 1049 of 2008) JULY 10, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.. ] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 rlw 34, 307: Murder.. ,. Conviction by Trial Court under s. 302 rlw 34 - High Court altered. conviction to s. 307 observing that there wa$ no injury on body of the deceased and 'mec~anica/' injμry was absent - On appeal, held: There was clear non-application of mind by High Court - It is not understandable as to what the High Court meant by tfie expression 'mechanical injury', particularly when evidence of the doctor and the postmortem report showed that there were 12 injuries on body of the deceased and each one of them wc,s described to be antemortem - Judgment of Trial Court restored. The prosecution case was that the. deceased was found lying dead with her hands and mouth/face tied with cloth. Trial Court convicted the accused-Respondents under s. 302 r/w s. 34 IPC.

On appeal, High Court altered the conviction to s. 307 IPC primarily on the ground that .. there was no injury on the person of the deceased, as ' allegedly accepted by the Public Prosecutor. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. On a bare reading of the High Court'~ order, it is clear that it is a classic case of non-application of mind. [Para 7) [653-D] 2. From the evidence of the doctor and the postmortem report, it is clear that -there were 12 injuries no- ticed on the body of the deceased and each one of them was described to be ante-mortem. It is not clear as to how the High Court observed that there was no injury on the body of the deceased. Still more surprising is the observation of High Court that "mechanical" injury being absent, it would be unjust, if the arg'ument of the accused is 'f.. - "not given some weightage. It. is not understood as to what the High Court meant by the expression 'mechanical injury'.

It is unfortunate that a Division Bench of the High Court came to such atrocious and fallacious conclusion. The judgment of the trial Court is restored and the High · Court's order so far it relates to alteration of conviction from s. 302 read with s. 34 to s. 307 IPC is set aside. [Para 8] [653-F, G & H; . 654-A & B] CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1049 of 2008 From the Judgment and final Order dated 15. 7. 2005 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D. B. Crl. Appeal No. 198/2002 V. Madhukar, Rajesh Kumar and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant. · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, altering the conviction of the respondent for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') to Section 307 IPC.

However, the conviction under Sections 458 and 460 IPC were maintained. The substantive sentences in respect of the offences were reduced to the period already undergone. 3. The trial Court i. e. learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand had convicted respondents 1 to 4 for offences pun- ) ishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 460, 458 and 397 of IPC and various other sentences in respect of the other offences. 4. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: ~ Sessions case in question arose from the first information report (exhibit P-5) which was presented by the complainant Shri Prakash Chand (PW-4) before the police incharge of Arakshi Kendra, Rajsamand on 11. 7. 1999. It was stated therein that on 11. 7. 1999 in the morning at around 6. 30 a commotion was taking place outside the house of Dali Chand father of Naval Ram. The complainant went to the house of Dali Chand and saw that Smt.

Jyoti wife of Dali Chand was lying dead there, whereas her hands and mouth/face were tied with cloth. Inside the room the hands and legs of Dali Chand were also found tied. Thereafter, Roop Singh untied his hands and legs. Goods ~ were lying scattered inside the room. The children of Da~i Chand live in Bombay and Dali Chand was having a shop of controlled commodities. This incident was stated to have been committed by some unknown persons. After the presentation of the aforesaid complaint, case No. 479/99 for offences punishable under Sections 460/458 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. ""' In the course of the investigation the investigating officer recorded the statement of the complainant Prakash Chand. The ). injured Dali Chand was admitted in the hospital at Rajsamand and Udaipur for treatment. His injury report exh. P-4 was re- . ceived. His x-ray was also conducted. After inspection of the place of the incident, spot memo exh. P-14 was prepared.

The panchayatnama memo of the dead body of the deceased Jyotibai Exh. P-1 was prepared. The clothes which had been used to tie the hands and the mouth of the deceased were hav- ... , ing blood on them and, therefore, they were seized as evidence vide exh. P-7. After conducting the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased the report Exh. P-3 was taken on record. Her dead body was handed over to her heirs for cremation vide .. A. Exh. P-2. From the place of the incident bloodstained stones and control sample stoneswere seized in res11ectwhereof exh. P- .. "'! ' ... injury on the body of the deceased. Still more surprising is the observation that "mechanical" injury being absent it would be unjust, if the argument of the learned counsel for the accused is A not given some weightage. It is not understood as to what the High Court· meant by the expression 'mechanical injury'. It is unfortunate that a Division Bench of the High Court has come to such atrocious andJallacious conclusions.

The appeal deserves . to be allowed which we direc~. The judgment of the trial Court is 13 restored and, therefore·, the High Court's order- so, far it relates to alteration of conviction from Section 302 read with Section 34 to Section 307 IPC stands set aside. The respondent shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder of sentence. C 9. The appeal is allowed. B. B. B. Appeal allowed.