JUDGMENT
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. The appellant was accused on the file of learned Special Judge (Sati Nivaran) Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur bearing Sessions Case No. 40/1998. Learned Special Judge vide judgment dated May 12, 2000 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-
Under Section. 302 IPC: To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.
5,000/-, in default to further suffer four Months
Rigorous Imprisonment.
Under Section. 201 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and
fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer one
Month Rigorous Imprisonment.
Substantial sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution story runs as under:-
On August 27, 1997 around 2.00 am the informant Ram Singh (PW. 5) submitted a written report at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur with the averments that in the morning of preceding day while the informant and Raj Kumar (now deceased) were having break fast in the house of Bhanwar Lal Godara (appellant), they were invited by the appellant to enjoy dinner with him in his house in the evening Around 7.00 PM the informant and Raj Kumar went on motor cycle to the house of the appellant to attend dinner party. Around 9.30 PM when the informant and other invites comprising of two constables, Ram Lal Mamu and one Netaji had been gossiping and Raj Kumar was cooking vegetable, the appellant opened knife and inflicted 2-3 blows on the abdomen of Raj Kumar. The appellant also made attempt to chase the information, but he fled away. A case under Section 302 IPC was registered by Police Station Vaishali Nagar and investigation commended. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before 6the learned Special Judge (Sati Nivaran) Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur. Charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 22 witnesses and got exhibited the documents. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.
3. Indisputably the injuries sustained by the deceased were homicidal and ante mortem in nature. A look at the post mortem report (Ex.P-29) reveals that the deceased sustained following injuries:-
“1. Incised stab wound longitudinally placed size 19cm x 3 cm x Abdominal deep with abdominal viscera coming out from 3, 1/2 cm above the lower end of sterum coming down slightly on right side of abdomen upto 3cm above and 4cm laterally to umblicus leaning a tail like and dry red clotted blood near over abdominal wall all over.
2. Incised wound 1, 1/2cm x 1/2cm x MD on (L) Index finger of (L) hand on between leniar and middle finger on palm aspect- dry red clotted blood.
3. Bruise red 4 x 1, 1/2 cm below & slightly (L) lateral to (L) Eye.”
As per testimony of Dr. L.L. Kanwat (PW. 6), who performed autopsy on the dead body, the cause of death was shock brought as a result of excessive haemorrhage due to injuries.
4. Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar learned counsel for the appellant criticised the impugned finding from various angle and urged that the FIR (Ex.P-15) lacks material facts that have been afterwards introduced at the trial by informant Ram Singh (PW. 5) and Mahendra Kumar Saini (PW.7). According to Ram Singh (PW.5), after the incident he straightway went to the house of Mahendra Kumar Saini, brother of the deceased, and from there Ram Singh and Mahendra Kumar Saini came together in a car to the police station via place of incident. They got written the FIR by an Advocate. But Mahendra Kumar Saini (PW. 7) deposed that one Lal Chand Meena wrote the FIR on the diction of Ram Singh. The fact that after seeing the dead body at the place of incident they went to the police station are missing from the FIR. Why the improvements in their testimony were made by the witnesses? Why only under-wear was found on the dead body? These questions remained unanswered. Alleged recovery of camera, knife and under garment stained with blood, at the instance of the appellant, has also been questioned and it was urged not to place reliance on it. Learned counsel contended that the Investigating Officer failed to enquire as to who was in possession of the house where incident occurred, what could have been the motive of the appellant to kill the deceased, is also not known. When Satyendra Singh Ranawat (PW. 20) Dy. S.P. reached at the conclusion that Hawai Singh was the accused, then why the appellant was implicated. Reliance is placed on Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan , 2002 RCC (SC) 226; Dharam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Cr.L.R. 111, and Manish Dixit v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2000 (Supp.) Vol. II SC 237, Srawan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, Vidhya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1971 SCC (Cr.) 469, and Kallikat Kunhu v. State of Kerala, 2000(3) SCC 50, Sohan and Anr. v. State of Haryana, 2001 (3) JT 262, Deepak Kumar v. Ravi Virmani and Ors., 2002(2) SCC 737, Namdev Dolta Dhayagude v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1977 SC 381, and Takhaji Heeraji v. Th. Kuberji, AIR 2001 SC 2328. In the alternative it is urged by learned counsel that even in the facts and circumstances of the case that if for the sake of argument it is presumed that the incident occurred in the manner shown by the prosecution, the case does not travel beyond Section 304 part II IPC, since the appellant did not take undue advantage of situation and only one injury has been attributed to him.
5. Per contra, Mr. M.L. Goyal, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and urged that from the testimony of Ram Singh (PW.5) and Mahendra Kumar Saini (PW. 7) as well as from other evidence produced by the prosecution at the trial charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC are established beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced.
6. We have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record.
7. Having scrutinised the evidence adduced at the trial we find the fact situation thus:-
(i) Prior to the incident Mahendra Kumar Saini (PW.7) the brother of deceased did not allow the appellant to enter his house because appellant was under intoxication. The appellant became angry and hit the door by foot.
(ii) In the house of appellant while Constables Jhabar Mal, Hawai Singh, one Netaji and Ram Swaroop had consumed liquor. After Ram swaroop and Netaji left, the appellant went inside and came back with knife, stabbed the knife on the abdomen of Raj Kumar and wrested it back. Thereafter the appellant chased Ram Singh, who left house and fled away.
(iii) Around 11.30 PM the appellant had a talk with informed Mahendra. Kumar Saini on telephone. At that time appellant was under the influence of liquor and told that he had killed Raj Kumar.
(iv) Prior to the incident the deceased paid money to the appellant or liquor and meat.
(v) Narendra Kumar (PW.15) Investigating Officer recovered blood wom the plot vide memo (Ex.P-9), where the dead body was found. Soil socked with blood was recovered from the house of appellant wide Ex.P-10. Motbirs Yagya Dutt. Sharma (PW.2) and Mahendra Kumar Saini (PW.7) corroborated the testimony of Narendra Kumar. Under-wear of deceased stained with blood was recovered vide memo Ex.P-16. From the FSL report (Ex.P-47) blood of the deceased was of group ‘B’.
(vi) According to Dr. G.K. Mathur (PW.19), Assistant Director FSL the floor of the house of appellant was found washed and spots of blood were found on the door, bath-room and boundary wall. Al per FSL report the spots of blood were of group ‘B’.
(vii) Underwear of appellant stained with blood, knife allegedly used in commission of offence and three cameras were recovered at the instance of appellant.
8. We have carefully scrutinised the testimony of Ram Singh (PW.5) and Mahendra Kumar Saini (PW.7) and having considered the same from every angles, we find their version as cogent and firm. The discrepancies shown do not shake the version of prosecution and it is established from the ocular and medical evidence that the appellant inflicted knife blow on the abdomen of deceased Raj Kumar and wrested it back. Presence of Ram Singh (PW.5) at the time of offence is quite natural and if other witnesses who were present at the time of incident were not examined, it hardly affect the truthfulness of the prosecution story. Dr. L.L. Kanwat (PW.6), who performed autopsy on the dead body of Raj Kumar deposed that the cause of death of deceased was shock brought as a result of excessive haemorrhage due to injuries and the injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. As already noticed Injury No. 1 was incised stab wound longitudinally placed of the size of 19cm x 3cm X abdominal deep. The prosecution, thus in our opinion, has established that the appellant intentionally inflicted the injuries and the infliction of such injury would indicate such a state of mind of appellant that he aimed and inflicted the injury with a deadly weapon. In view of the nature of injury, it would be perverse to conclude that appellant did not intend to inflict the injury that he did. When once the ingredient “intention” is established then the offence would be murder as the intended injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. While dealing with a case of single injury the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagrup Singh v. State of Haryana, 1981 SCC (Cr.) 768 , indicated that there is no jurisdiction for the assertion that the giving of a solitary blow on a vital part of the body resulting in death must always necessarily reduce the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 part II IPC. In State of Karnataka v. Vedanayagam, 1995 Cr.L.R. (SC) 69, it was held that it is fallacious to contend that whenever there is a single injury only a case of culpable homicide is made out irrespective of other circumstances. Ratio propounded in Thakaji Hiraji’s case (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the instant case, since in that case the incident took place all of sudden. In the instant case from the testimony of Ram Singh (PW.5) and Mahendra Kumar Saini (PW.7) it is established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had motive to kill Raj Kumar. It is established that incident took place in the house, thereafter place of incident got washed and the dead body was thrown on a nearby open plot. Thus charges under Section 302 and 201 IPC are established against the appellant.
9. Coming to the case law cited on behalf of the appellant we find that in Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan (supra), their Lordships of Supreme Court indicated that group ‘B’ is not an uncommon group of blood and no effect was made to exclude the possibility that the blood of the accused belonged to the same group. The possibility cannot be ruled out that blood of clothes being of accused himself. In Dharam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that the presence of blood of same group is a circumstance to the take into consideration but is not sufficient to warrant conviction. In Manish Dixit v. State of Rajasthan (supra), it was held that blood stains of same blood group of deceased on the motor bike of accused is not decisive. In Srawan Singh v. State of Punjab (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that suspicion, however strong, can not take place of proof. We do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. The embellishments and discrepancies shown in the testimony of witnesses are not material and they do not shake the prosecution version. Even if circumstantial evidence collected by the prosecution is ignored, the testimony of Ram Singh cannot be discarded.
10. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal, the same stands dismissed.