Dismissed

Balu Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC1 May 2019CRLA/369/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an appeal against the conviction and sentence for murder (Section 302 IPC) and attempted murder (Section 307 IPC). Relying on the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses and medical reports, the Court upheld the trial court's finding that the appellant intentionally rambmed a motorcycle from behind to prevent complainants from reporting a grievance, rejecting the d

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed; the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellant for Sections 302 and 307 IPC are upheld.

Balu Singh Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶2

¶3

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 369/2012

¶4

Balu Singh son of Udai Singh Chundawat, Resident of Asind, Police Station Asind, District Bhilwara (Raj.). (At present lodged in Central Jail, Ajmer).

----Appellant

Versus

State

----Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. S.S.Sisodia. For Respondent :

¶10

: Mr. Anil Joshi, PP for the State.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶12

Judgment

¶13

(Per Hon’ble Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.)

¶14

01/05/2019

¶15

The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.01.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura, District Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.20/2009 whereby the accused appellant has been

¶16

convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶17

Offence	Sentence	Fine	In Default
302 IPC	Life imprisonment	Rs.10,000/-	Three months R.I.
307 IPC	10 years Rigorous imprisonment.	Rs.10,000/-	Three months R.I.

¶18

(2 of 12) [CRLA-369/2012]

¶19

Brief facts necessary to be noted are that a written report (Ex.P/1) was lodged by Sarfuddin Sheikh(PW1) to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Asind District Bhilwara on 31.07.2009. In the report, he stated that at 09:15 am, when he was at home, his uncle (Mama) Imamudin came to his residence and said that outside the Haweli (house), the appellant Balu Singh had slapped him twice. Therefore, his uncle was going to the police station for reporting the matter. His uncle Imamuddin with his son Sher Mohammed and nephew Sonu @ Rashid Mohammed went on a motorcycle to the police station. At around 09:45 am, Zakir Mohammed (PW13) informed him on telephone that his uncle (Mama) Imamudin and brothers were killed by accusedappellant Balu Singh by dashing their motorcycle with his jeep in front of Dev Narayan Petrol Pump on Bhilwara Road. The injured persons were being taken to the hospital by Anish Mohammed, Mohammed Shakil Faujdar, Shakil Mohammed Pathan and Inayat Mohammed Pathan. When he got this information, he also reached the hospital and saw his uncle (Mama) Imamudin and his cousin Sonu @ Rasid lying dead. Injured Sher Mohammed was immediately shifted to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Asind. Bhilwara. The accused- appellant dashed the motorcycle with his Jeep No.RJ-06-C-6183 from behind with intention to kill his uncle Imamudin and brother Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed. The accusedappellant repeatedly ran over the jeep upon his uncle and brother by reversing the Jeep. The accused-appellant fled away from the place of incident along with his Jeep.

¶20

(3 of 12)

¶21

[CRLA-369/2012]

¶22

On this report, a formal F.I.R. No.106/2009 was registered at Police Station- Asind District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 325 & 323 IPC against the accused-appellant. The investigation was commenced. The appellant was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/8) on 31.07.2009 at 07:30 pm.

¶23

After completion of the investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under sections 302, 307, 325 & 323 of IPC.

¶24

Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 323 & 325 IPC to the charge sheeted accused, who pleaded not guilty and sought trial.

¶25

During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/43 in support of its case. One witness Harakchand (DW-1) was examined from defence side.

¶26

The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial to which he denied.

¶27

Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offences under sections 302 & 307 IPC vide judgment dated 17.01.2012. Hence this appeal.

¶28

We have heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

Mr. S.S. Sisodia, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that it is a pure case of accidental death and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. All

¶30

(4 of 12)

¶31

[CRLA-369/2012]

¶32

the prosecution witnesses are close relatives of the deceased persons, therefore, being interested witnesses, their testimony should be discarded. He further contends that although the accident took place in front of the petrol pump and it was witnessed by the persons working on the petrol pump but nobody came forward and appeared in the witness box as an independent witness which makes the entire prosecution story doubtful and unreliable. He further contends that the FIR lodged by PW1 Sarfuddin Sheikh is an afterthought and has been drafted after due consultation to falsely implicate the appellant in the present case. This is also clear from the fact that Rojnamcha report (Ex.P/42) was already received by the police in which the fact of only the accident has been mentioned. He, therefore, contends that instead of investigating the matter from the point of view that it is a case of accidental death, the entire investigation has been carried out by the investigating agency considering it as a case of murder at the hands of the appellant on the basis of written report (Ex.P/1).

¶33

He further contends that even site plan (Ex.P/2) shows that while the deceased persons and injured Sher Mohammed were going on motorcycle in front of the petrol pump, the jeep driven by the accused-appellant dashed them from behind. Thus, it was a sheer accident and not a murder. The counsel, therefore, prays that the appellant should be acquitted from the charges levelled against him by setting aside the judgment impugned dated 17.01.2012.

¶34

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor while supporting the impugned judgment dated 17.01.2012 has argued that it is a clear case of murder by the appellant. He had slapped Imamudin

¶35

(5 of 12)

¶36

[CRLA-369/2012]

¶37

without any reason. Imamudin was going to report the matter to the police station along with his son (Sher Mohammed) & his nephew Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed whereupon, the appellant followed them by his Jeep and hit the motorcycle from behind with immense force resulting into death of Imamudin and Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed and causing grievous injuries to Sher Mohammed (PW15). The intention to cause death is clear and specific. He further submits that PW13 Zakir Hussain is an eye witness who clearly deposed that the motorcycle which was driven by Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed on which Sher Mohammed and Imamudin were pillion riders was intentionally dashed from behind by the Jeep driven by the accused-appellant in front of the Petrol Pump. When they went to the place of accident, they saw that Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed was dead and other two persons were injured. It is further contended that Sher Mohammed (PW15) who is an injured eye witness stated that when they had reached in front of Dev Narayan Petrol Pump, the accused-appellant dashed his jeep from behind resulting into numerous grievous injuries including crush injuries which were sustained by him and fatal injuries sustained by deceased Imamudin and Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed resulting into their instantaneous death. He further argues that the postmortem reports of deceased Imamudin and Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed (Ex.P/10 & Ex.P/11) show 14 and 19 injuries respectively on their body which establishes the fact that the injuries were caused by the appellant by repeatedly ramming the Jeep which was being driven by him.

¶38

The testimony of ocular evidence corroborated by the medical evidence and the background in which the assault took place establishes the fact that the appellant tried to stop both the

¶39

(6 of 12)

¶40

[CRLA-369/2012]

¶41

deceased from reporting the matter to the police as he had slapped Imamudin. He further argues that the trial court after correctly appreciating the facts in issue and the evidence adduced has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences alleged vide judgment dated 17.01.2012, therefore, he prays that the judgment passed by the trial court does not call for any interference by this court and deserves to be upheld.

¶42

We have considered the submissions made at the bar and have minutely gone through the record of the learned trial court as well as judgment dated 17.01.2012 impugned herein.

¶43

PW1 Sarfuddin Sheikh who lodged the written report deposed before the trial court that on 31.07.2009 when he was at his residence, his uncle (Mama) Imamudin came and said that the accused-appellant fought with him and slapped him and to report this matter, they were going on a motorcycle to the Police StationAsind, Bhilwara. Zakir Hussain (PW13) informed him telephonically that the accused-appellant rammed the Motorcycle on which Imamudin, Sher Mohammed & Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed were sitting with his Jeep opposite the Petrol Pump. The injured were taken to the hospital. When he reached the hospital, he saw Imamudin and Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed lying dead. Sher Mohammed was seriously injured & was referred to Bhilwara. The Jeep No.RJ-06-6188 belonged to the accused-appellant. The accused rammed the motorcycle with his jeep with intention to kill Imamudin, Sher Mohammed and Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed. During the cross examination of this witness, nothing significant was elicited which can discredit the evidence given by this witness in his examination in chief.

¶44

(7 of 12)

¶45

[CRLA-369/2012]

¶46

PW3 Mohammed Anish deposed that Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed came and told him that Balu Singh slapped his uncle Imamudin. Thus, for reporting the matter Imamudin, Sher Mohammed and Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed were proceeding to the police station on a motorcycle. The appellant followed them with his jeep. After having driven his motorcycle for some distance, the appellant in his Jeep overtook his motorcycle and rammed his jeep with the motorcycle which was being driven Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed on which Imamudin and Sher Mohammed were pillion riders . The appellant with the intention to kill collided the jeep to the motorcycle by impact whereof, all the three fell on the ground. The accused-appellant reversed the Jeep and again rammed it into the three persons who were lying on the ground. Thereafter, the accused-appellant ran away. Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed and Imamudin sustained multiple injuries and succumbed thereto Sher Mohammed’s legs were fractured. All the three persons were taken to the hospital.

¶47

PW6 Mohammed Shakil deposed almost on the same lines as Deposed by PW4 Mohammed Rasid.

¶48

PW13 Zakir Hussain stated that on 31.07.2009 at around 09:15 am, after getting petrol from Sawai Bhoj Petrol Pump, he saw that a motorcycle which was being driven by Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed on which Sher Mohammed and Imamudin were pillion riders was rammed from behind by the Jeep driven by the accused-appellant Balu Singh. Because of the collision, all the three persons fell on the ground and when he and other workers of the petrol pump reached near the place of collision, he saw that Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed had died on the spot and the other two persons who were grievously injured were taken to the hospital.

¶49

(8 of 12)

¶50

[CRLA-369/2012]

¶51

The appellant fled from the spot after the collision. During the cross examination of this witness, nothing significant was elicited which can discredit the evidence given by this witness in his examination in chief.

¶52

PW15 Sher Mohammed who is an injured eye witness deposed before the trial court that when his father came to the house, he complained that the accused-appellant had slapped him, therefore, he wanted to go to the police station to report the matter. Thereafter, he along with his father Imamudin and his brother Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed started for the police station on his motorcycle. On the way, they met Anish, Shakil Pathan, Shakil Faujdar and Inayat and told them that the appellant had slapped his father and therefore, they were going to the police station for reporting the matter. The motorcycle was being driven by Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed. He was sitting behind Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed and his father Imamudin was sitting at the back end. When they reached opposite to Dev Narayan Petrol Pump, the Jeep No.RJ06C-6183 driven by the accused-appellant hit them from behind. As a result of the collision, they fell on the road, he fell on one side of the road and his father Imamudin and brother Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed fell on the other side of the road. The appellant thereafter, reversed the jeep and crushed them thrice. Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed died on the spot and his father was grievously injured. All the three persons were thereafter, taken to the hospital. After reaching the hospital, his father also succumbed to the injuries whereas, he himself was referred to Bhilwara. The Jeep was driven by accused-appellant. During the cross examination of this witness, nothing significant was elicited

¶53

(9 of 12)

¶54

[CRLA-369/2012]

¶55

which can discredit the evidence given by this witness in his examination in chief.

¶56

PW11 Dr. Nemichand who conducted autopsy upon the body of the deceased Imamudin, described the injuries sustained by him. The cause of death of Imamudin was opined to be head injury which was grievous & sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He also conducted the autopsy upon the dead body of deceased Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed and described the dimensions and places of injuries present on the body of deceased and stated that the cause of death was grievous injuries on the head and chest. He also examined Sher Mohammed and stated that there were four injuries on his body. He was referred to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara.

¶57

PW24 Ravindra Charan was the investigating Officer who conducted the investigation of the matter and stated that he prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of the witnesses, effected the recoveries, collected the samples. He further stated that he completed the investigation under the provisions of law.

¶58

The postmortem report of deceased Imamudin is Ex.P/10 showing 14 injuries on his body and mentioning the cause of death to be head injuries which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were opined to be antemortem in nature.

¶59

Postmortem report of deceased Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed is Ex.P/11 showing 19 injuries on his body. The cause of death was stated to be head injuries, with compressed chest injuries. These injuries were sufficient to cause death. All injuries were antemortem in nature.

¶60

(10 of 12)

¶61

[CRLA-369/2012]

¶62

Arrest memo of the accused-appellant is Ex.P/8 showing his arrest on 31.07.2009 at 7:30 pm.

¶63

The ocular evidence which has come on record more particularly the testimony of injured eye witness Sher Mohammed (PW15) reveals that after heated altercation and exchange of hot words between Imamudin and the appellant, the appellant slapped Imamudin. Therefore, to report the matter to the police, Imamudin, Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed and Sher Mohammed were going to the police station on a motorcycle. The motorcycle was being driven by Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed. The appellant, in order to prevent the complainant party from reporting the matter to the police, followed them with his Jeep and rammed their motorcycle from behind opposite of Dev Narayan Petrol Pump resulting into the death of Imamudin and Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed and causing grievous injuries to Sher Mohammed. The testimony of Sher Mohammed (PW15) is worth reliance and cannot be doubted as he himself is an injured eye witness.

¶64

The fact of the motorcycle being rammed from behind has also come in the testimony of Zakir Hussain (PW13) who was an independent chance witness who saw the accident while he was taking fuel from the petrol pump. We are of the view that the allegation levelled by the witnesses PW1 Sarfuddin Sheikh, PW3 Mohammed Anish, PW4 Mohammed Rasid, PW6 Mohammed Shakil, PW13 Zakir Hussain and PW15 Sher Mohanmmed that the accused repeatedly rammed the deceased and the injured over by his jeep appears to be an exaggeration but despite that, the undisputed fact available on record indicates that there was scuffle between the accused and Imamudin. Imamudin who was proceeding to report the matter to the police, the accused appears

¶65

(11 of 12)

¶66

[CRLA-369/2012]

¶67

to have got wind on this attempt of Imamudin and to prevent the same from happening, he followed the motorcycle on which Imamudin was going and deliberately rammed same with his jeep resulting into death of Imamudin, Sonu @ Mohammed Rasid and grievous injuries to Sher Mohammed. The defence story that present is a case of pure and simple accident, is ruled out from the circumstances noticed above as well as the site inspection plan which shows that there is clear line of vision which are places where the collision took place. The incident took place in broad day light. Thus, it cannot be conceived by any stretch of imagination that the collision was accidental in nature.

¶68

The testimony of PW1 Sarfuddin Sheikh, PW3 Mohammed Anish, PW4 Mohammed Rasid, PW6 Mohammed Shakil, PW13 Zakir Hussain and PW15 Sher Mohammed is clinching on the point that the Jeep driven by the accused-appellant collided with the motorcycle from behind causing fatal injuries to Imamudin and Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed.

¶69

The number of injuries found on the body of deceased Imamudin and Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed clearly indicate the impact and force with which their motorcycle was hit by the accused-appellant causing death of Imamudin and Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed.

¶70

The ocular evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence in the shape of statement of Dr. Nemichand (PW11) and postmortem reports (Ex.P/10 & 11) of deceased Imamudin and Sonu @ Rasid Mohammed shows that the appellant caused the collision by dashing his jeep from behind with intention to kill the riders of the motorcycle. The learned trial court was, therefore,

¶71

(12 of 12)

¶72

[CRLA-369/2012]

¶73

justified in convicting the accused-appellant for the offences alleged against him.

¶74

In view of the discussion hereinabove, the instant appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. The judgment and order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gulabpura District Bhilwara is upheld. The record be returned forthwith.

¶75

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶76

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶77

3-Anil Singh/-

Balu Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balu Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alkaram Vs State

Laxman Singh Vs State

Smt Jarina Bano Vs State

Kailash Vs State

Vipin @ Vivek @ Vikka Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhula Vs State of Rajasthan