JUDGMENT
A.S. Godara, J.
1. This appeal, through the Central Jail, Jodhpur, is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-3-1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balotra whereby, while being acquitted of offence under Section 307, I.P.C., the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 326 and 324, I.P.C. He has been awarded sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and, in default of payment of fine, six months’ imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. three years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, three months’ R.I. under Section 326, I.P.C. and one year’s R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-and, in default of payment of fine, two months’ imprisonment under Section 324, I.P.C. The sub-stantive sentences have also been ordered to run concurrently.
2. In succinct, the facts that gave rise to the prosecution trial and ultimate conviction of the accused-appellant may be summarised as follows :
3. The appellant is resident of Sindhari in Banner District. Pura (P.W. 3) is his father while Mst. Jamana (since deceased) was mother of the appellant. Smt. Palu (P.W. 1) is younger sister of the appellant while Smt. Meera (P.W. 2) is wife of elder brother of the appellant while Smt. Antri (P.W. 5) is the wife of the appellant. They were all members of a joint family. On the fateful day, i.e. 1-4-92, the appellant along with his wife Smt. Antari was working at a stone-quarry in village Sarnu. They had their field in the territory of village Sarnu. Since Pura (P.W. 3) and his younger brother Punja wanted to be separated from each other and, as a result, they wanted to divide and partition their agricultural field and so along with their other relations, Pura and Punja had gone to the field in the village Sarnu. At the field itself, some quarrel ensued between Punja and his nephew-appellant. However, Pura accompanied by his son as well as his daughter-in-law and his brother Punja left Sarnu and, lastly dropped at Sindhari. The ‘Dhani’ of Pura is situated about a distance of 21/2 kms. from the police station of town Sindhari. The appellant reached his Dhani ahead of his father and wife whereat his mother Smt. Jamana (since deceased) and his elder brother’ wife Smt. Meera (P.W. 2) were present. The appellant immediately took out a sword from his ‘jhompa’ and he started assaulting Smt. Jamna with the naked sword. As a result, Smt. Jamana fell to the ground and suffered more injuries and lastly, she succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Smt. Antri was following her father-in-law (Pura) at some distance while heading towards their ‘Dhani’. No sooner they reached near the Dhani, Pura found that his wife Smt. Jamana had already been fatally assaulted and he saw the appellant running with a naked sword towards the direction in which Smt. Antri was coming. Pura shouted towards Antri to save herself failing which the appellant would kill her to death. Antri ran back covering a little distance from there but before she could escape the assault of the appellant, she was overpowered and was assaulted with the naked sword as a result of which she received multiple injuries and fell to the ground. Taking her to be dead, the appellant fled away from there with the naked sword.
4. Bhanwar Singh (P.W. 20), officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Sindhari received telephonic message that a lady was lying in an injured condition, as above, and on this cryptic information which was taken down in the general diary of the police, rushed to the place whereat Smt. Antri was lying seriously hurt and bleeding. He took down her statement in the form of Parcha Bayan (Ex. P-1) in which aforesaid sequence of incident was reported and, on the basis of Ex. P-1, Ex. P-44 FIR under Sections 302, 307 and 324, I.P.C. was registered and investigation was taken up.
5. The injuries of Smt. Antri, vide Ex. P-2 memorandum were inspected. She was, firstly, taken to the Government Hospital at Sindhari and, after first aid, she was transported to the Government Hospital at Barmer whereat her injuries were examined and x-rayed and she was admitted as an indoor patient.
6. Dr. M. M. Purohit (P.W. 14) examined injuries of Smt. Antri vide Ex. P-40 MLR and he found as many as six incised wounds on her person. After x-rays of injuries parts of Smt. Antri under the direction of Dr. A.K. Goyal (P.W. 15), on the basis of Ex. P-41 report, it was found that the clavicle and acromion process of scapula bone, second metagarpel bone of right hand were fractured and there was amputation of left thumb at the level of meta-carpo phalangeal joint and so all these injuries were confirmed to be grievous in nature while rest of the injuries found on her person were opined to be simple. All these injuries were caused by a sharp weapon.
7. Bhanwar Singh, during the course of investigation, inspected the dead body of Smt. Jamana lying at her Dhani and found multiple fatal injuries on her person. He prepared Ex. P. 9 inquest report. Her dead body was subjected to an inquest performed by Dr. G. S. Charan (P.W. 16) vide Ex. P. 39 PMR. He found incised oblique wound 26 cms x 6 cms x 8 cms bone deep starting from angle of mandible right side extending posteriorly and superiorly up to occipital bone cutting the angle of mandible and occipital bones. Besides, incised wound 15 cm x 5 cms x 6 cms situated 5 cms below aforesaid injury starting from right lateral side of neck extending posteriorly and superiorly at the level of 3 cms below occipital bone cutting muscles of neck and large vessels and external jugular vein and internal carotid artery from outer-ward inside was also found. As a result, the Medical Officer opined that the cause of death of Smt. Jamana was severe haemorrhage due to cutting of large veins primarily resulting from aforesaid injury No. 2 and other aforesaid organs resulting from injury No. 1 and the same were caused by a sharp weapon.
8. During the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested vide Ex. P. 14 arrest memo and, at the same time, the blood stained clothes including ‘Tewata’ were seized from his person and the same were sealed. Pursuant to disclosure statements made by the appellant, scabbard and sword (Arts. 1 and 2 respectively) were recovered and duly sealed. The site was inspected and site memo was also prepared. The blood-stained articles including the clothes weapon of offences as well as soil were forwarded to the Rajasthan State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur (for short ‘the RSFSL, Jaipur) for chemical examination.
9. After completion of investigation, acharge-sheet for aforesaid offences was filed in the committal Court and, resultantly, the case stood committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Balotra who charged the accused for alleged commission of offences under Sections 302, 307 and 326, IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As a result, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses as listed and named in the impugned judgment and also produced and exhibited material documents by way of documentary evidence.
10. The appellant was examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and he denied that he had assaulted and killed his mother and so also hurt his wife. Instead, he advanced a plea that his wife Smt. Antri was a lady of bad character and so she had killed his mother Smt. Jamana and, being provoked, his elder brother Panchu Ram assaulted Smt. Antri and he escaped from the scene of occurrence. He led no defence evidence.
11. After hearing both sides, vide impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant, as above, and hence this appeal.
12. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae Shri Mukesh Vyas for the appellant as well as the learned P.P. for the State and have also perused and considered the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment along with the record of the trial Court.
13. The learned Amicus Curiae, while assailing the impugned judgment, has contended that Ex. P. 1 statement alleged to be Parcha Bayan of Smt. Antri (P.W. 5) is nothing but a concoction since Smt. Antri also admitted that she became unconscious on the spot and she regained her consciousness after about three days while she was under treatment at the Government Hospital, Barmer. She could not have, in such a precariously injured condition, given her detailed statement and to have affixed her thumb impression on Ex. P. 1 specially when she received multiple injuries as borne out of Ex. P. 40 MLR. Besides, P.W. 3 Pura also admitted that the appellant had also, after assaulting Smt. Antri, rushed to the police station and, besides, though P.W. 20 Bhanwar Singh stated that a cryptic telephonic message was received regarding lying of an injured woman and nothing more but all these circumstances are fraught with great suspicion and it is improbable and, instead, it has been submitted that the police had gone to the spot and, after making investigation, registered a post-investigation FIR Ex. P. 44 and that arouses suspicion in regard to reliability of the evidence of P.W. 20 Bhanwar Singh as well as other prosecution witnesses. The alleged witnesses of the occurrence are inter-related and interested inter se and there could have been other independent witnesses who have not been examined by the prosecution. As a result, his submission is that none of the prosecution witnesses specially P.W. 1 Smt. Palu, P.W. 2 Smt. Meera, P.W. 3 Pura, P.W. 4 Rupa or P.W. 5 Smt. Antri could have seen the, appellant assaulting either Smt. Jamana or Smt. Antri looking to the distance of two places whereat Smt. Jamana and Smt. Antri are alleged to have been subjected to assault. Besides, none of the these witnesses corroborated the prosecution version as borne out of Ex. P. 1 ParchaBayan culminating into Ex. P. 44 FIR and the statements of the aforesaid witnesses are also at variance. The alleged recovery also does not inspire confidence since the alleged Motbirs witnesses have also not lent full corroboration to the testimony of P.W. 20 Bhanwar Singh who is author of Ex. P. 14, Ex. P. 15 and Ex. P. 18,
14. Besides, it has been submitted that since it has come out of the prosecution evidence itself that the appellant greatly suspected the character and conduct of P.W. 5 Smt. Antri, who was, as also admitted by P.W. 2 Smt. Meera, having extra marital relations with Kalu who is husband of sister of the appellant much to the annoyance and objections from the side of the appellant and that the character of Smt. Jamana was also doubtful as she was also suspected to be involved in similar conduct with Punja who is younger brother of P.W. 3 Pura. As a result, his further submission is that because of this vitiated atmosphere, since the appellant, deceased, injured as well as the prosecution witnesses belonged to one and the same family and there was no immediate provocation or any notice for the appellant to have killed his mother to death and to have also made a serious assault on his wife Smt. Antri and hence it has been submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable manner of doubt and hence the learned Sessions Judge, while taking superficial view of the prosecution evidence, committed serious illegality and infirmity in holding the appellant guilty of commission of aforesaid offences.
15. However, the learned P.P. has vehemently supported the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment and order.
16. At the out set, it may be observed that so far as violent and unnatural homicidal death of Smt. Jamana is concerned, there is no serious controversy about it. Besides, as regards the injuries, the same being grievous as well as simple, of P.W. 5 Smt. Antri, there is also no serious challenge to the same.
17. P.W. 3 Pura, P.W. 2 Smt. Meera, P.W. 1 Smt. Palu and P.W. 4 Rupa have clearly stated that Smt. Jamana was lying seriously hurt and P.W. 20 Bhanwar Singh, as borne out of Ex. P. 9 inquest report, testified that, as also evidenced from Ex. P. 28-A, Ex. P. 29-A, Ex. P. 30-A and Ex. P. 31-A positive photos, Smt. Jamana was lying seriously hurt and dead and, at the same time, bleeding profusely. Besides, P.W. 16, Dr. G. S. Charan, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Sindhari performed autopsy on the dead body of Smt. Jamana as borne out of Ex. P. 39 PMR, has clearly opined, as already stated hereinbefore, that Smt. Jamana died due to severe haemorrhage resulting from cutting of large vessels and other delicate organs and all these injuries were caused by a sharp weapon.
18. P.W. 5 Smt. Antri stated that the appellant (her husband) gave a hot pursuit while she was on her heels running back to save her life and that it was the appellant who started giving repeated blows of sword and, as a result, as also evidenced from Ex. P. 40 MLR, she received not less than six injuries and out of which the aforesaid three injuries, having resulted in causing fractures of bones, were opined to be grievous as borne out of statement of P.W. 14 Dr. M. M. Parohit who had seen her injuries, as also supported by P.W. 15 Dr. A. K. Goyal, Radiologist, as per Ex. P. 33 report of Radiologist based on x-ray findings. These very injuries were noted by P.W. 20 Bhanwar Singh in Ex. P. 2 injury report prepared at the site. These injuries have also been corroborated by P.W. 3 Pura, and, lastly, P.W. 1 Palu.
19. The appellant also, during the course of trial and so also at the time of his examination, could not deny the factum of homicidal death of his mother resulting from the injuries so received by her as well as causing of simple and grievous injuries to P.W. 5 Smt. Antri. There is also no dispute that all these injuries resulted from a sharp weapon like sword.
20. Therefore, the next crucial point that calls for our determination is whether the appellant is the author of the fatal injuries of his deceased mother Smt. Jamana and so also that of simple and grievous injuries received by his wife P.W. 5 Smt. Antri.
21. The appellant has not advanced any defence plea in justification of causing such injuries to the deceased as well as injured Smt. Antri. Besides, he has taken a wavering and self-contradictory defence. However, in a criminal trial, the initial burden of proving charge beyond reasonable manner of doubt is always on the prosecution and the weakness of the defence cannot be a substitute therefor.
22. The prosecution did not examine any independent and unrelated witness in support of its case but, at the same time, there is no evidence that there was any independent witness present at the place of occurrence. Merely because the aforesaid witnesses of the occurrence including P.W. 5 Smt. Antri are inter-related and are aggrieved by the act of the appellant, that by itself, cannot be a ground for visiting their evidence with suspicion and, instead, the evidence of these witnesses has to be appreciated and accepted with care and caution. In case their evidence is found to be reliable, the same cannot be a ground for rejection solely on the ground of their relationship or interestedness.
23. P.W. 1 Smt. Palu, who was aged 15 years, is younger sister of the appellant. She has, as also corroborated by P.W. 2 Smt. Meera and P.W. 3 Pura, stated that her mother Smt. Jamana was present at her house along with P.W. 2 Smt. Meera. Both of them were mending their thorn-fencing at about 5 p.m., while she was inside her ‘jhompa’, the appellant abruptly entered the ‘jhompa’ and took out the sword which was lying there and he immediately started assaulting her mother Smt. Jamana standing in the ‘Dhani’ with the naked sword. He also inflicted a fatal blow on the neck of Smt. Jamana. Smt. Jamana died on the spot. Smt. Meera, being frightened, immediately rushed away from there. Her father (P.W. 3 Pura) was coming towards the ‘Dhani’ at some distance at that time. She immediately narrated this incident to her father and she also ran out of her ‘Dhani’. She clearly stated that since she was frightened and could not dare to intervene and, therefore, she started shouting and running from there and this conduct of her’s was quite natural and reliable. She has clearly denied defence suggestion that it was P.W. 5 Smt. Antri who has killed Smt. Jamana and, instead, stuck to her statement that it was the appellant who had killed his mother-with a sword. She has also been’ suggested, in her cross-examination, that it was Smt. Antri who was assaulting her mother fatally and so she intervened and, lastly, it was she who had inflicted injuries of P.W. 5 Smt. Antri. There is nothing material to disbelieve statement of Smt. Palu as she is also the real younger sister of the appellant. Her testimony is natural, reliable and straight forward and without any taint. It inspires full confidence.
24. P.W. 2 Smt. Meera, while supporting statement of P.W. 1 Smt; Palu, stated that she along with her mother-in-law (Smt. Jamana) was mending thorn-fencing of her ‘Dhani’ while Smt. Palu was inside jhompa in the same ‘Dhani’. The appellant came to the ‘Dhani’ and silently went into the ‘jhompa’ and came out with a sword and, by then, Smt. Jamana had come to the ‘Aangan’ of the ‘Dhani’ and the appellant immediately started assaulting Smt. Jamana with the sword. Smt. Jamana was seriously hurt and started bleeding. Both, she as well as Smt. Palu ran out of the ‘Dhani’ out of fear after Smt. Jamana had fallen to the ground. They saw with their own eyes that the appellant was killing Smt. Jamana. She escaped from the scene of occurrence to the neighbouring ‘Dhanis’ and returned on the next day of the occurrence and on her return she found that Smt. Jamana was lying dead in her ‘Dhani’. She also stated that Smt. Antri returned home after interval of about 15 days when she learnt that she was also assaulted by the appellant. She also stated that her father-in-law had come to the ‘Dhani’ after a little while of the assault made by the appellant on Smt. Jamana. She stated that she did not know about the motive of the appellant in killing his own mother. However, On the defence suggestion, she admitted that Smt Antri was having illicit marital relationship with Kalu husband of the sister of the appellant. Smt. Antri, while she was living at Delhi along with her husband, carried on such illicit ‘extra marital relationship with Kalu and it was being seriously objected to by Smt. Jamana. However, she stated that being rebuked and remonstrated by her mother-in-law, P.W. 5 Smt. Antri did not go to Kalu. There is nothing extracted from cross-examination of the witness to detract her from the category of an eye-witness of the occurrence resulting in killing of Smt. Jamana by the appellant and none else. P.W. 3 Pura also, while supporting the prosecution story, stated that accompanied by Rupa, Antri and the appellant, he returned from Sarnu to Sindhari town. He also stated that prior to leaving Sarnu, the appellant took up some quarrel with his brother Punja in regard to division of their agricultural holding and so they had all returned to Sindhari in a truck. After alighting from the truck, the appellant went to his ‘Dhani’ ahead of them, while being followed by P.W. 5 Smt. Antri, he was also heading towards his ‘Dhani’ at some distance from the appellant. When she was at a little distance from his ‘Dhani’, P.W. 1 Smt. Palu cried that her mother was killed and when he enquired as to who was the killer, she immediately told that it was the appellant who killed her mother. Meanwhile, the appellant came from the opposite side whereat his ‘Dhani’ was situated with a naked sword in his hand. He wanted to question him but he did not stop and, instead, he ran towards his wife (P.W. 5 Smt. Antri). He shouted towards Smt. Antri that she should run away else she would be killed to death at the hands of the appellant. She unsuccessfully started running in the opposite direction being chased by the appellant. He entered his ‘Dhani’ and found Smt. Jamana lying dead and bleeding with injuries. He left for the police station. On reaching the road-crossing, he came to learn that the police had left for his house since the appellant had already gone to the police station after commission of the offences. He went to Smt. Antri with the police and gave water to her on demand. She was bleeding from her multiple injuries. The police removed Smt. Antri to the hospital, as above.
25. He did admit in his cross-examination that there was no animosity or any misunderstanding between his wife and the appellant (his son). They had cordial relationship. However, in his cross-examination, though half heartedly, on the defence suggestion, he admitted that he did not see sword in the hand of the appellant and that Palu also did not tell him that the appellant had killed Smt. Jamana. He has falsely, since there is no rhyme or reason to disbelieve the aforesaid statements of P.W. 1 Palu and P.W. 2. Meera that the police had inspected the site of the occurrence in his presence and went to the extent of admitting that both Palu as well as Meera were out of ‘Dhani’ at the time when Smt. Jamana was assaulted and that there was nobody present in the ‘Dhani’ when Smt. Jamana was assaulted. Though, being his father, he clearly appears to have taken favour of his son while admitting all the defence suggestions but, so far as examination-in-chief is concerned, he has clearly stated that both his daughter P.W. 1 Palu as well as daughter-in-law P.W. 2 Meera were present at their house and that his daughter Palu told him that her mother Smt. Jamana was killed by the appellant and, thereafter, she ran away from there and, besides, he also clearly stated that the appellant was chasing and giving hot pursuit to his wife P.W. 5 Smt. Antri and, therefore, it was incumbent on the prosecution as well as the defence to have confronted his witness with his statement given in examination-in-chief and, subsequently, contrary to the same, while heeding to the defence suggestion, as above, but the same has not been done. As the relationship of father with that of the appellant being his son appears to have moved the witness to lend support to the defence story but there is no reason to discard testimony of P.W. 1 Palu who is daughter of this witness and so also that of the deceased (Smt. Jamana) who is also real younger sister of the appellant. She would be the last person to have falsely saved the real assailant and, instead, to have falsely implicated the appellant who is none but her real elder brother.
26. P.W. 4 Rupa, while supporting the aforesaid version of P.W. 3 Pura, stated that after dropping at Sindhari, Pura as well as appellant and his wife Smt. Antri left for their ‘Dhani’. However, after some time, P.W. 3 Pura met him while returning from ‘Dhani’ who told him that the appellant had killed his wife and he had run with a naked sword and he did not know as to how many more persons would be killed to death by the appellant. Meanwhile, the police had come to the ‘Dhani’ of Pura. He saw Smt. Jamana lying dead at the ‘Dhani’ of Pura.
27. In this sequence P.W. 5 Smt. Antri, being the wife of the appellant himself, while corroborating the aforesaid statement of P.W. 3 Pura, stated that after killing her mother-in-law Smt. Jamana at their ‘Dhani’, while she was passing from the field of Hema Bhil to approach her ‘Dhani’ following her father-in-law P.W. 3 Pura shouted towards her that she should run away lest she would be killed by her husband. She ran in the opposite direction covering a distance of about one bigha and was overpowered by the appellant having a sword in his hand. He started giving repeated blows of sword as a result of which she fell down receiving multiple grievous and simple injuries on different parts of body as discussed hereinbefore. The appellant left from there assuming that she was already dead. After some time, the police officer came to the place of occurrence and she was, lastly, taken to Barmer hospital whereat she was treated as an indoor patient.
28. She also stated, that for some time, while appellant Misra was working as a” labourer at Delhi, she also accompanied him to Delhi and she used to be assaulted by the appellant at Delhi. The appellant suspected that she was having illicit relationship with his brother-in-law Kalu and so she had returned to her parents’ house wherefrom after about two years, as a result of intervention of the Panchayat, she was sent back along with the appellant before this incident. She also admitted that the Parcha Bayan (Ex. P. 1) was recorded by the police and her thumb impression was obtained on the same. As regards mother-in-law’s being assaulted by the appellant, since she could not have seen the occurrence taking place in the ‘Dhani’ because of thorn-fencing. She did not see the appellant while assaulting her mother-in-law and she has rightly admitted that she could not have seen the appellant while assaulting her mother-in-law fatally who had died, as above. Though, inadvertently, she did admit that because of multiple serious injuries, she became unconscious and could regain her consciousness after a lapse of about 3 days at Barmer hospital but, as also stated by P.W. 3 Pura, she asked for water at the place of occurrence itself and, besides, P.W. 20 Bhanwar Singh has stated that she was in her sense and Parcha Bayan (Ex. P. 1) was recorded by him and she also affixed her thumb impression. Since, as also borne out of Ex. P. 40 MLR, her right thumb was not hurt and, instead, it was left thumb which was amputated as a result of which injuries inflicted by the appellant with the sword there is right hand thumb mark on Ex. P. 1. She has stated that she recovered her consciousness at the Barmer hospital. This statement only tends to show that since she was seriously assaulted and bleeding and was under much agony and pain before she could be taken to Barmer hospital and hence, on the face of statement of P.W. 3 Pura and P.W. 20 Bhanwar Singh, as also borne out of Ex. P. 1 Parcha Bayan, .it cannot be held that, in fact, she had become fully unconscious and was unable to give any statement to the police in the form of Ex. P. 1 and, therefore, as also held by the learned trial judge and, in our opinion, rightly too, she had not become unconscious and there was no rhyme or reason for P.W. 20 Bhanwar Singh to have still recorded a false statement attributing the same to this witness. He could have equally attributed this statement to P.W. 3 Pura but he did not do so showing his natural and reliable conduct.
29. Contrary to the aforesaid defence plea unfolded in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 Palu, this witness was suggested that when she was working at the stone-quarry, she fell down from the hillock resulting in her injuries and this defence plea has been completely denied by her. She also denied that she was the author of the fatal injuries of her own mother-in-law. In the same breath, another inconsistent defence plea was put to her that the elder brother of the appellant who is of mentally disordered mind, had assaulted her being annoyed by her assault on her mother and she also emphatically denied this defence suggestion as well.
30. P.W. 20 Bhanwar Singh, just after the occurrence, while having learnt of the incident through a cryptic telephonic message, reached the place where Smt. Antri was lying injured and recorded Ex. P. 1 Parcha Bayan on which, subsequently, Ex. P. 44 FIR was registered. In the aforesaid circumstances, there was no oblique motive for this witness to have recorded false statement in the form of Ex. P. 1. Therefore, the moment Ex. P. 1 statement of P.W. 5 Smt. Antri was recorded in regard to commission of the offences and the offender liable therefor, this information being in regard to commission of cognisable offences, this information was, for all purposes, FIR given to officer-in-charge of the police station who is this witness. Whatever subsequent steps during the course of investigation were taken by this witness could not be held to be post-investigation having any adverse bearing on veracity and correctness of Ex. P. 44 FIR. Therefore, all the objections in regard to Ex. P. 44 FIR from the side of defence do not help us in disagreeing with the conclusion one arrived at by the learned trial Judge in regard to veracity and acceptability of the testimony of this witness and so also the veracity of version as given in Ex. P. 44 FIR resulting from Ex. P. 1 Parcha Bayan so recorded by this witness. Ex. P. 44 FIR also lends corroboration to the aforesaid statement of P.W. 5 Smt. Antri.
31. The defence theory so advanced is self-contradictory and inconsistent and the same has been fully denied by P.W. 1 Smt. Palu, P.W. 2 Smt. Meera and P.W. 5 Smt. Antri consistently. There is no material in support of the bald defence plea and it is nothing but a false and concocted one and so it has been rightly rejected by the trial Judge.
32. The appellant was motivated to assault his mother and the wife since he greatly suspected their moral character.
33. The aforesaid evidence of P.W. 1 Smt. Palu as well as P. W. 2 Smt. Meera and so also that of P.W. 5 Smt. Antri is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 16 Dr. G. S. Charan, P.W. 15 Dr. A. K. Goyal and P.W. 14 Dr. M. M. Purohit as already discussed and concluded hereinbefore.
34. Lastly, the aforesaid ocular evidence of the witnesses of the occurrence also finds corroboration from the circumstance’ of factum of recovery of the weapon of offences which is Article 2 sword recovered on the basis of discovery statement of the appellant by P.W. 20 Bhanwar Singh.
35. P.W. 20 Bhanwar Singh stated that he arrested the accused-appellant on the same day vide Ex. P. 14 arrest memo. He further stated that the accused was wearing a shirt and a ‘Tewata’ which was found to be blood stained and, accordingly, the same were taken off from his person and were packed and sealed as per Ex. P. 18 seizure memo.
36. He also further stated that it was on 2-4-92 that, while in police custody, at the time of interrogation, the appellant made a disclosure statement that the blood-stained sword was hidden under a tree of ‘Kair’ which could be recovered at his instance and this was reduced to writing in the form of Ex. P. 46. Pursuant to this information and at the instance of the appellant who led the police party to the place whereat he had kept the sword, as above, the police recovered sword (Art. 2) which was found to be bloodstained as well as stained with human hair and the same was packed and sealed and taken into possession as per Ex. P. 15 recovery memo as supported by P.W. 9 Babu Lal. It was on 3-4-92 that the appellant further gave information to P.W. 20 Bhanwar Singh that scabbard of the naked sword recovered at his instance on the previous day, as above, was kept in the ‘jhompa’ of his ‘Dhani’ and pursuant to this information, also being Ex. P. 46, he took the police party to his ‘jhompa’ and got Article 1 scabbard recovered from the ‘Dhani’ which was taken into possession and was packed and sealed as per Ex. P. 17 recovery memo.
37. P.W. 20 Bhanwar Singh had proved all these documents and factum of furnishing disclosure statement leading to recoveries of Arts. 1 and 2, as above, at the instance of the appellant and his statement is further supported substantially fry P.W. 8 Bhela Ram though brother of the appellant himself though with little bit hesitation, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of P.W. 20 Bhanwar Singh. Besides, P.W. 9 Babu Lal has lent material corroboration to the statement of Bhanwar Singh in regard to recovery of Article 2 sword vide Ex. P. 15 at the instance of the appellant.
38. As also rightly believed by the trial Court, there is nothing in the statement of these witnesses to discard the factum of giving information by the appellant to Bhanwar Singh resulting in discovery of Article 1 scabbard and Article 2 sword at the instance and on the information of appellant himself.
39. Resultantly, we find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt that the weapon of offence being sword, was recovered at the instance of the appellant. As regards use of this weapon in commission of injuries to the deceased Smt. Jamana as well as to P.W. 5 Smt. Antri, as also stated by P.W. 20 Bhanwar Singh, after recovery of Article 2 sword, the same having been packed and sealed at the spot of recovery, was deposited in the Malkhana of the police station in the charge of P.W. 18 Thakara Ram, HC. As also stated by P.W. 18 Thakara Ram, P. W. 11 Uttam Ramand P.W. 12 Shyam Lal, Constables, Tewata’ so seized from the possession of the appellant at the time of his arrest, as above, as well as the sword so recovered on the information of the appellant, their packets were kept duly sealed and intact in the Malkhana of the police station before the same, through the office of S.P., Banner, were taken to Jaipur and deposited with the RSFSL, Jaipur for their chemical examination. As borne out of RSFSL report Ex. P. 47 received from the aforesaid laboratory, the ‘Tewata’ so recovered from the possession of the appellant at the time of his arrest which he was wearing on his body as well as the sword so recovered at the instance and on the information of the appellant, were found to have been stained with human blood. There is no explanation for presence of human blood on the clothes of the appellant as well as sword Article 2 recovered at his instance. Besides, Article 2 sword also showed that there were hairs of human origin stuck on the sword.
40. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, since there is nothing to disbelieve or discard Ex, P. 47 chemical report and so also Ex. P. 48 report connected with examination of the hairs holding that the hairs found stuck to the sword are of human origin and, as a result, this evidence further shows that it was the appellant who was armed with this sword at the time of occurrence which was used in inflicting injuries to his own mother resulting in her death as well as to her own wife result in grievous as well as simple injuries to her and that the blood of these injured/killed persons was found on the ‘Tewata’ which he was wearing at the time of his arrest just after the occurrence and, as a result, this circumstantial evidence further fortifies the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and so also being affirmed by us that it was the appellant who armed himself with the sword with the intention of killing his mother to death and she was caused fatal injuries resulting in her instantaneous death as also supported by P.W. 16 Dr. G. S. Charan on the basis of findings of PMR and, in the same transaction, he also assaulted his wife Smt. Antri and inflicted not less than six injuries out of which three were grievous injuries as supported by P.W. 4 Dr.M. M. Purohit and P.W. 15 Dr. A. K. Goyal.
41. Apparently, since, as a result of infliction of injuries by the appellant with the aforesaid deadly weapon of offence being Article 2 sword, Smt. Jamana received injuries on her person resulting in cutting of Jugular vein as well carotid artery and so the large vessels and vital organs having been so injured, a severe haemorrhage ensued resulting in causing instantaneous death of Smt. Jamana and, as a result, there is no difficulty in presuming that the appellant intended to kill is mother and as a result of murderous assault-she met with her instantaneous death and so this is a case of intentional murder on the part of the appellant.
42. Besides, Dr. G. S. Charan has clearly stated that both the injuries so found on the person of Smt. Jamana were sufficient in (he ordinary course of nature to have caused her death and this version of his has not been successfully challenged and, in view of these circumstances, the act of (he accused-appellant, not falling within any of the exceptions of Section 300, IPC or within general exceptions of the same Code. The same is clearly covered by clauses firstly and thirdly of Section 300, IPC and, therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the liability of the appellant for commission of offence of murder of his own mother beyond reasonable doubt and so the findings of the learned trial Judge holding the appellant liable, as above, is fully corroborated by the ocular as well as circumstantial evidence warranting no interference in this appeal.
43. Similarly, as regards the injuries of P.W. 5 Smt. Antri, she is wholly reliable witness and she would have been the last person to have falsely attributed all these injuries to her own husband in case she had been hurt by some body else or she would have received injuries by a fall as suggested in the defence theory. On the other hand, the defence plea is false holding no water and the same has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. We do not find any justification to disagree from the same.
44. Resultantly, the prosecution also proved beyond reasonable manner of doubt that it was the appellant who authored all the grievous and simple injuries of Smt. Antri and so the appellant has been rightly convicted for causing simple and grievous injuries with the sword to his own wife P. W. 5 Smt. Antri and hence there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment holding the appellant liable for commission of offences under Sections 326 and 324, IPC. However, since the appellant caused simple injuries in the same transaction resulting in grievous injuries to P. W. 5 Smt. Antri and there was hardly any justification for separate conviction and sentencing of the appellant under Section 324, IPC on the basis of his conviction under Section 326, IPC, as well but, as above, since the sentences so awarded under the impugned judgment and order have been ordered to run concurrently, and, therefore, practically it is of insignificance.
45. As a result of aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
46. Consequently, this appeal is hereby dismissed while affirming the judgment of conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 326 and 324, IPC and so also the impugned order of sentences under Sections 302 and 326, IPC, However, as regards sentence of imprisonment awarded under Section 324, IPC, the same shall run concurrently along with other sentences of imprisonment so awarded but as regards sentence of fine under Section 324, IPC, the same shall stand set aside.
47. With the above modification, this appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. The appellant shall be required to undergo remaining sentences so awarded under the impugned judgment and order under appeal.