High Court upheld conviction for double murder but modified sentence to life imprisonment without commutation or premature release for remainder of life to protect surviving child witness.
Criminal appeal dismissed; conviction upheld; sentence modified to imprisonment for rest of life without commutation or premature release.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 574/2012
Hadmat Singh @ Hadmata son of Sawa Ji, by caste Ravana Rajput, aged about 33 years, Resident of Azodar, Raniwara Police Station, District Jalore
(Lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Dhirendra Singh For Respondent : Mr. N.S. Bhati, P.P. Mr. Prashant Sharma for complainant
----Respondent
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
Per Hon’ble Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
11/04/2019
The present 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 05.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore in Sessions Case No. 50/2011 [94/2009] whereby the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as under :-
| Offence | Sentence |
|---|---|
| U/s 302 I.P.C. | Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 03 months’ additional rigorous imprisonment. |
| U/s 460 I.P.C. | 10 Years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of |
(2 of 11)
[CRLA-574/2012]
Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 03 months’ additional rigorous imprisonment. U/s 307 I.P.C. 05 Years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 02 months’ additional rigorous imprisonment.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently
The brief facts of the case are that a written report (Ex.P/4) was filed by PW-3 Asu Singh (Ex.P/4) on 04.10.2009 at Police Station Raniwara, District Jalore wherein it was stated that on 04.10.2009 at around 08:00 A.M., Smt. Shobha wife of his brother-in-law Bher Singh, Resident of Ajodar informed him telephonically that Rinka daughter of Parbat Singh came to her at 07:00 A.M. and informed that “her grand-mother Gulabi and mother Manju were assaulted by her uncle Hadmata with an axe last night and both of them were profusely bleeding. Her grandmother and mother were not responding to her. Her uncle Hadmata also tried to throttle and had bitten her with the intention to kill her as well. When she cried, her uncle Hadmata fled from the place of incident through staircase. Since it was night, she got frightened and kept sitting in the house and approached Shobha in the morning.” Her sister-in-law Smt. Shobha told him that thereafter she went to the house of Mool Singh and saw Smt. Gulabi and Smt. Manju lying dead on the cots. Upon receiving this information, he reached the place of incident at Village Ajodar and saw his mother-in-law Smt. Gulabi Devi and sister-in-law Smt. Manju lying dead on the cots with deep incised wounds on their neck and blood was scattered all around.
(3 of 11)
[CRLA-574/2012]
On this report, a formal F.I.R. No. 165/2009 was registered at Police Station Raniwara, District Jalore for the offences under Sections 458, 307 & 302 of I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the accused-appellant on 04.10.2009.
After conclusion of investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 460 & 307 of I.P.C.
Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offences under Sections 302, 460 & 307 of I.P.C. to the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and sought trial.
During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses and exhibited documents from Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/58 in support of its case.
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, which he denied and stated that witnesses were liars. He had been falsely implicated and feigned innocence. The accused-appellant got D.W. 1– Karan Singh examined and exhibited two documents in his defence.
Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 05.05.2012. Hence this appeal.
We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant fervently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations levelled against the appellant beyond all
(4 of 11)
[CRLA-574/2012]
reasonable doubt. The only eye-witness in the case is PW-13 Rinka and her testimony is not worth credence and reliable as she being a child witness aged about 10 years was not able to comprehend the consequences of her statement. That apart, she being being the daughter of the deceased Smt. Manju and granddaughter of the deceased Smt. Gulabi, is an interested witness and therefore, the possibility of her being tutored so as to falsely implicate the accused-appellant cannot be ruled out. Since, the incident took place in night and thus, looking to the prevailing darkness, it was not possible for P.W. 13 – Rinka to identify the accused-appellant. It has also come on record that there are different versions with respect to the presence of illumination of the electric bulb at the place of incident which creates doubt in the prosecution story.
Learned counsel on the strength of these arguments urges that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant was guilty for the murder of Smt. Gulabi & Smt. Manju and therefore, the learned trial court committed grave factual and legal error while convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the alleged offences as above vide Judgment dated 05.05.2012 and thus, the accusedappellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, while supporting the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 05.05.2012 contended that the prosecution had been able to prove the allegations against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The star prosecution eye-witness PW-13 - Rinka (i.e. child witness) stated that the appellant came to their house at night and inflicted fatal
(5 of 11)
[CRLA-574/2012]
blows to her grand-mother Smt. Gulabi and mother Smt. Manju by an axe and also tried to kill her by strangulation. But when she screamed, the accused-appellant fled away from the scene of occurrence. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the child witness as her testimony is getting complete corroboration from the statement of PW-12 Dr. Gajendra Singh who conducted the autopsy upon the dead bodies of the deceased Smt. Manju and Smt. Gulabi and the postmortem reports (Ex.P.20 & 21) wherein the cause of death was shown as haemorrhagic shock resulting from injuries present on the body of Smt. Manju and asphyxia and haemorrhagic shock due to injury present on the body of Smt. Gulabi. He further contended that the recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. Axe (Ex.P/14) on the information supplied by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/50) as well as the FSL Report (Ex.P/52), as per which, presence of “A” group human blood is established on the weapon of offence i.e. axe as well as clothes of the deceased sent for F.S.L. examination, complete the chain of circumstances leading to the only conclusion that it was none other than the accused-appellant who was involved in the commission of the offences alleged in the case. He further submitted that the learned trial court, after evaluating the entire facts and evidence on record, come to the only possible and logical conclusion of the guilt of the accused-appellant and rightly convicted him for the offences alleged in the case vide Judgment dated 05.05.2012, which does not warrant any interference by this Court.
(6 of 11)
[CRLA-574/2012]
We have considered the submissions made at bar and minutely gone through the record of the learned trial court as well as the judgment dated 05.05.2012 impugned herein.
PW-13 - Rinka being grand-daughter of deceased Smt. Gulabi and daughter of deceased Smt. Manju firmly deposed before the learned trial Court that her mother and grand-mother were living together in the village Ajodar. Her uncle Mool Singh and aunt were living at Mumbai. Her uncle i.e. accused Hadmata (whom she identified in the Court) was a regular visitor to their house. She used to sleep with her mother and grand-mother. On the date of incident, while she was sleeping with her mother, she woke up as she heard the sound of some one coming into their house. Her her uncle Hadmata, the present appellant, entered into their house. There place was sufficiently illuminated by the light of a bulb. In the light of bulb, she saw the accused-appellant holding axe in his hand assaulting her grand-mother and thereafter her mother. At the time of incident, her grand-mother and mother were sleeping on the cots in the courtyard of their house. Both her mother and grand-mother were profusely bleeding after axe blows were inflicted by the accused-appellant and both of them were not responding and were lying silent. Her grand-mother was inflicted axe blow on her neck and her mother was inflicted axe blow near the ear. She became frightened and started crying, then accused-appellant bit her on the back and tried to choke her. When she cried, the accused left her and went away from their house. She slept with her grand-mother. On the next morning, she went to Shobha Mausi (PW-17) and narrated the entire incident. Thereafter, Shobha (PW-17) came to their house. Nothing significant was elicited during the cross-
(7 of 11)
[CRLA-574/2012]
examination of this witness so as to doubt the credibility or veracity of the deposition made by her in the examination-in-chief.
PW-17 - Smt. Shobha stated in her testimony that Rinka came to her house in the morning and narrated the entire story to her whereupon, she immediately rushed to the house of Mool Singh and saw both Gulabi and Manju lying dead on the cot. Thereafter, she returned to her home and informed Asu Singh about the said incident.
PW-3 - Asu Singh who lodged the FIR stated almost on the same lines as mentioned by him in the written report (Ex.P/4).
PW-12 Dr. Gajendra Singh who conducted the autopsy upon the dead bodies of the deceased Smt. Gulabi and Smt. Manju described the injuries sustained by both of them. He proved the postmortem reports of the deceased Smt. Manju and Smt. Gulabi are Ex.P/20 & Ex.P/21 and opined the cause of death to be haemorrhagic shock resulting from injuries present on the body of Smt. Manju as well as asphyxia and haemorrhagic shock due to injuries present on the body of Smt. Gulabi, respectively.
The recovery of bloodstained weapon of offence i.e. axe vide Recovery Memo Ex.P/14 was effected pursuant to the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/50) supplied by the accused-appellant. The F.S.L. Report is Ex.P/52 wherein the blood group “A” was found on the weapon of offence i.e. axe matching the blood group found on the bloodstained clothes of the deceased sent for F.S.L. examination. The injury report of injured Rinka (P.W. 13) is Ex.P/22 wherein the injuries sustained by her have been mentioned, which read as under :-
“1. Bruise with red colour 2x1 cm Lt. side of heel Simple Blunt
(8 of 11)
[CRLA-574/2012]
The statement of P.W. 13 – Rinka has been recorded after due satisfaction of the learned trial court that the child was able to understand the implications of what she was saying. A bare reading of her statement shows that it is absolutely reliable and trustworthy. She being the daughter of deceased Smt. Manju and grand-daughter of the deceased Smt. Gulabi, her presence in the house is quite natural. Her presence at the scene of occurrence is also established as she herself sustained injuries at the hands of the accused-appellant which is quite clear from the injury report (Ex.P/22) and therefore, narration of events by P.W. 13 – Rinka is absolutely believable. We have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W. 13 – Rinka simply because she is a child witness. Her testimony gets thorough corroboration from the statement of P.W. 3 – Asu Singh and P.W. 17 - Smt. Shobha who reached the place of incident and saw the dead bodies of the deceased Smt. Gulabi and Smt. Manju lying on the cots in a pool of blood. The statement of P.W. 13 – Rinka is also corroborated in material particulars from the deposition of P.W. 12 – Dr. Gajendra Singh, the Medical Jurist, who described the location and nature of injuries on the bodies of the deceased Smt. Gulabi and Smt. Manju, which match with the deposition of the eye-witness. The cause of death of both the deceased is opined to be injuries suffered by them, which were undeniably sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The statement of P.W. 13 –
(9 of 11)
[CRLA-574/2012]
Rinka gets corroboration from the deposition of P.W. 12 – Dr. Gajendra Singh and the postmortem reports of the deceased Smt. Manju and Smt. Gulabi (Ex.P/20 & 21) which complete the chain of circumstances leading to the only conclusion that the accusedappellant murdered the deceased, which is fortified from the recovery of bloodstained axe vide Recovery Memo Ex.P/14 on the information supplied by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/50). The F.S.L. Report (Ex.P/52) also shows the presence of “A” blood group on the weapon of offence i.e. axe as well as clothes of the accused-appellant tallying with the bloodstains found on the clothes of the deceased.
We note that an F.I.R. (Ex.P/25) was previously registered against the accused-appellant by the deceased Smt. Manju wherein she stated that the accused-appellant had used abusive language with her and had threatened her of dire consequences after consuming liquor. Therefore, the motive was also present in the case for the accused-appellant to take revenge of lodging of the F.I.R. by Smt. Manju.
We also note that it is a case of gruesome double murder at the hands of the accused-appellant and the learned trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and reached to the only possible and logical conclusion that Smt. Gulabi and Smt. Manju had been mercilessly killed by the accused-appellant by inflicting axe blows on the vital parts with intention to kill them. Besides this, P.W. 13 – Rinka who was only 10 years old also assaulted by the accused-appellant by inflicting injuries to her as mentioned in the injury report (Ex.P/22). She raised a hue and cry whereupon the accused panicked and fled from the scene leaving the child alive to tell the story. In case, a child witness
(10 of 11)
[CRLA-574/2012]
explains the relevant events of the crime without wavering, improvements or embellishments, the same inspires confidence of the Court. In our view, the case does fall within the category of rarest of rare case in which the accused-appellant mercilessly, brutally and barbarically murdered Smt. Gulabi and Smt. Manju and inflicted injuries to P.W. 13 – Rinka, who was daughter of Smt. Manju and grand-daughter of Smt. Gulabi but the learned trial court did not consider this case to be one falling in the category of rarest of rare case for the purpose of awarding death sentence. There is no appeal against the Judgment dated 05.05.2012 filed by the complainant or the State for enhancement of sentence but in our view, taking into consideration the vehemence and hostility towards the entire family and the fact that P.W. 13 – Rinka is still alive, there can be an imminent danger to the life of Rinka (P.W. 13) and therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not exercising our suo moto powers to enhance the sentence and instead maintain the conviction and sentences awarded to the accused-appellant by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. with the condition that the accused-appellant shall undergo the imprisonment in prison for the remainder of his life without chance of commutation or premature release. The other sentences awarded by the learned trial court are maintained as per the judgment dated 05.05.2012.
Our view is supported by the observations made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Subash Chander and ors. Vs. Krishan Lal anr ors. reported in A.I.R. 2001 SC 1903 wherein it has been held as under :-
(11 of 11)
[CRLA-574/2012]
“23. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, apprehending imminent danger to the life of Subhash Chander and his family in future, taking on record the statement made on behalf of Krishan Lal (A1), we are inclined to hold that for him the imprisonment for life shall be the imprisonment in prison for the rest of his life. He shall not be entitled to any commutation or premature release under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Prisoners Act, Jail Manual or any other statute and the Rules made for the purposes of grant of commutation and remissions.”
In view of discussion made above, we are of the firm opinion that the judgment dated 05.05.2012 passed by the learned trial court convicting and sentencing the accusedappellant for the offences under Sections 302, 460 & 307 of I.P.C. deserves to be upheld except for the modification as above for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.
Resultantly, the criminal appeal fails and is dismissed as such. However, the judgment and order dated 05.05.2012 passed by the learned trial court is upheld except for the modification in sentence as above for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The accused-appellant shall undergo imprisonment in prison for the rest of his life for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
1-Inder/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the child witness testimony regarding the double murder is reliable and sufficient to sustain conviction.
Whether sentence enhancement is required under the rarest of rare category to ensure life without commutation for the remaining family.
Whether the criminal appeal against conviction and sentence should be allowed or dismissed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Subash Chander and ors. Vs. Krishan Lal anr ors.Referred¶66
A.I.R. 2001 SC 1903 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Hadmat Singh @ Hadmata
State of Rajasthan
Vinit Kumar Mathur
Sandeep Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
