JUDGMENT
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
1. Karnail Singh was tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra, at Dharamshala District for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Basant Singh. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ – and in default thereof, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. The fine if realised was ordered to be paid to the widow Smt. Kaushalya Devi. Now the accused has come up in appeal before this Court.
2. We may briefly state the prosecution case. The accused as also deceased are the residents of same village Hada Mauza Fatehpur District Kangra. On July 11,1991 at about 9.00 p.m. the accused came to the house of the deceased under the influence of liquor and started abusing him and when the deceased asked the accused not to do so, the accused threatened to kill him. However, after some altercation, the deceased went to the cow-shed, where he used to sleep. Smt. Kaushalya Devi wife of late Basant Singh and Smt. Rano Devi daughter-in-law slept in the verandah of their house. Basant Singh did not return home in the morning. Smt. Kaushalya Devi went to the cow-shed and found his dead body lying in the verandah, The dead body was having several injuries. On coming to know about the death of Basant Singh his widow Kaushalya Devi (P W 2) went to Police Station, Jwali to lodge the report but at a place Fatehpur, A.S.I. Krishan Chand (PW 16) met her who recorded her statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sent the same for registration of the case.
3. The police machinery came into action. A.S.I. Krishan Chand visited the spot, prepared inquest papers (Ex. P-3), dispatched the corpus of the deceased Basant Singh to Civil Hospital, Nurpur for post-mortem. Dr. D. R. Rial (PW 1) conducted the postmortem examination and opined that Basant Singh had died because of Asphyxia due to throttling. He found 12 injuries on the dead body.
4. After completion of the investigation the police filed report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the accused in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nurpur who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge at Dharamshala on October 22, 1991 for trial. During trial the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the statement made under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused admitted his presence at the house of the deceased on 11-7- 1991 at about 9/9.30 p.m. and also the presence of PWs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi, Smt. Rano Devi and Gulzari Lal. It is also admitted by him in answer to question No. 17 that the deceased used to sleep in his cow-shed during night which is situate at a distance of about 100 yards from his house. He has further admitted that on the date of occurrence he saw the deceased going towards cowshed where he used to sleep all alone.
5. The trial court accepted the prosecution allegations and convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.
6. We may point out at the very outset that there is no direct evidence in the case and the prosecution allegations rest on the circumstantial evidence which may be indicated as follows :-
(i) Motive.
(ii) The oral statements made by Smt. Kaushalya Devi, wife (PW 2) Smt. Rano Devi, daughter-in-law (PW 3) and Gulzari Lal, son (PW 4), stating that the accused came to their house on 11-7-1991 at about 9/9.30 p.m. and hurled abuses to them under the influence of liquor and further threatened to do away with the life of the deceased.
(iii) The medical evidence which demonstrably proves that it was a case of homicide.
(iv) The subsequent conduct of the accused.
7. According to Dr. D. R. Rival (PW 1) conducting the post-mortem examination the deceased had died because of the Asphyxia due to throttling. The Doctor also noticed as many as 12 following injuries on the dead body:-
1. Seven small contusions, bluish-red in colour, over the anterior part of neck, below thyroid cartilage, extending transversely covering 7×4 cm. area. The underlying tissue was achmoysed and the platysma, sternomastoid muscles, on right side was also torn with extravasation of blood into it. Carotid artery on right side was contused, underlying the above said contusions.
2. Red abrasion 5×3 cms. in size over right side fore-head with clotted blood over it.
3. Reddish blue contusion 3×2 cms. over glabella extending to right side nose,’ with fracture of underlying nasal bone.
4. Red abrasion 2 x 1/2 cms. on left side nostril with clotted blood over it.
5. Reddish abrasion 2 x 1 cm. in size on right side of chest, in 6th inter-costal space below and medial to the right side nipple.
6. Reddish abrasion 2×1 cm. in size over inner surface of right side upper lip, corresponding to the central incisor tooth.
7. Red abrasion 1 x 1/2 cm. in size on the back side of right side wrist.
8. Multiple small contusions with red abrasions over the posterior surface of the left forearm, extending from elbow joint downward covering 15×5 cms. area.
9. 10×5 cms. bluish-red contusions, on the right side shoulder and below the right clavicle.
10. Bluish-red contusion 11×5 cm. in size on the left side chest, medial to left side shoulder joint and below the left side clavicle.
11. Red abrasion 2×2 cm. in size over the left side hip. .
12. An old infected wound 1 x 1 cm. in size over the left forearm and anticeptic dressing was done on it.
8. According to him except injury No. 12 all the injuries were fresh and were caused within 36 hours of the post-mortem examination. The throttling was caused by applying pressure on the neck with hands. He issued post-mortem report (Ex. P-2) and opinion (Ex. P-5) which clearly prove that Basant Singh had not died by natural death but he had been killed by pressing the neck.
9. We have carefully and minutely examined the evidence adduced in the case and have also objectively considered the arguments advanced on behalf of either side.
10. First contention raised by learned counsel for the accused is that the witnesses examined in the case being members of the same family and highly interested witnesses, their testimony should not be relied upon in the absence of any independent corroboration.
11. It is necessary to consider the correctness of the reasoning of the trial court. So far as the motive is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Smt. Kaushalya Devi (PW 2), Smt. Rano Devi (PW 3), Gulzari Lal (PW 4) and documentary evidence i.e. copy of challan under Sections 107/151, Cr.P.C., copies of statement recorded in those proceedings and copies of order sheet passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, (Exs. P-19 to P-26). The presence of PWs 2, 3 and 4 at the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. PWs. Kaushalya Devi, Rano Devi and Gulzari Lal have fully corroborated each other on the point that on 11-7-1991 at about 9/9.30 p.m. the accused came to their house under the influence of liquor and hurled abuses upon the deceased and proclaimed that he would kill Basant Singh. They have deposed that on the earlier occasions also, the accused was in the habit of picking up quarrel and giving threats to the complainant party, and his father Babu Ram and proceedings under Sections 107/ 151, Cr.P.C. were initiated twice or thrice against him. It has come in the evidence of P.Ws. Kaushalya Devi, Rano Devi and Gulzari Lal that accused was having dispute with his father on account of the reason that he was suspecting that his father had illicit relation with his wife and the accused used to quarrel with his father on this count and deceased used to intervene and save Babu Ram from beatings and the accused did not like such intervention of the deceased in the family affairs. It has also come in their evidence that one year prior to the occurrence, the accused tried to kill his father and when the deceased tried to intervene, the accused gave a stone blow on the head of the deceased. A report of this incident was lodged with the police. The accused was arrested by the police but after some time he was released on bail and thereafter absconded to Delhi. The accused has admitted the initiation of the criminal proceedings under Sections 107/151, Cr.P.C. by the complainant party. After the initiation of criminal proceedings under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in December, 1989 the accused went to Delhi and came back to the village on March 11, 1991. In June, 1991 he again started quarrelling with the complainant party for which report Ex. P-24 was lodged in the Police Station, Jwali on the basis of which again proceedings under Sections 107/151, Cr.P.C. (Ex. P-23) were initiated against him. In those proceedings statement of Babu Ram father of the accused (Ex. P-22) was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate in which it is found stated that the accused is a vagabond and has been threatening him to do away with his life. The father has left the house on account of fear from the accused. These witnesses have given details of the occurrence on 11-7-1991, when the accused came to their house. We find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel. There is no rule either of law or prudence which requires that the evidence or the interested persons should not be believed and acted upon simply because it has not been corroborated by some independent witnesses of the occurrence. As in the instant case, although independent witness Krishan Chand (PW 5) has turned hostile about the incident of hurling abuses by the accused to the deceased, yet he admitted having accompanied the accused to the house of the deceased on 11-7-1991 and presence of all the family members there.
12. On the facts of this case the motive is proved which lends additional support to the prosecution case. Each of these witnesses gave a vivid and consistent account of entire occurrence, and their testimony has not been shattered in the cross-examination. A perusal of the documents Ext. P-19 to Ext. P-26 as discussed above clearly goes to show that the accused, had some dispute with the complainant party and with his father Babu Ram. These documents corroborate the testimony of PWs. Kaushalya Devi, Rano Devi and Gulzari Lal that the accused, in fact, wanted to harm complainant-party and particularly, the deceased.
13. The other contention raised on behalf of the accused is that the case hinges upon the circumstantial evidence and the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn has not been fully established and all the facts so established are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances are not of conclusive nature and tendency and chain of evidence is not complete and within all human probability the murder alleged to have been committed by the accused has not been established.
14. He has relied upon series of decisions viz. Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, , Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, , Rama Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, , Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, and S. D. Soni v. State of Gujarat, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 567 : (1991 Cri LJ 330). In these decisions the underlining principles are that in dealing with the circumstantial evidence, there is always the danger that conjectures or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. In case of the evidence of a circumstantial nature the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established, should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there should be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that with all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. We are of the view that there is absolutely no dispute to the cardinal principles of law laid down in the decisions referred to above, but the facts and circumstances of each case have to be scrutinised.
15. Smt. Shyama Dogra, learned Deputy Advocate General contended that the oral evidence of the witnesses adduced in the case is cogent, consistent and finds corroboration from medical evidence. There is no indication of false implication of the accused in the case. She has supported the judgment of the trial court. She relied upon Nadodi Jayaraman etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu, and Kathi Ramku Aligbhai v. State of Gujarat, .
16. Now we may deal with circumstances Nos. 2 and 3 jointly.
17. In order to prove the second and third circumstances the prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of PW Kaushalya Devi, Smt. Rano Devi and Gulzari Lal. All of these witnesses have stated that on 1lth July, 1991 the witnesses and the deceased were present at their house. The deceased used to sleep in the cow-shed during night which was at a distance of 100 yards from their house. The accused had seen the deceased going to cow-shed for sleep. The accused also admitted in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that on the relevant date the deceased had gone for sleep to his cow-shed. These witnesses have further deposed that Krishan Chand (PW 5) was also with the accused at that time, who also tried to save the accused from quarrelling with them. PW. Gulzari Lal stated that after the deceased went to the cowshed to sleep and the accused also went to his house, he went to his shop to sleep. PWs. Kaushalya Devi and Rano Devi stated that they slept in the verandah of their house and after some time they noticed the accused going towards their cow-shed, but they thought that the accused might have gone to attend the call of nature and during night time it was raining. According to Kaushalya Devi the deceased used to return home at about 5 a.m. regularly from the cow-shed, and on the morning of July 12, 1991 he did not return till that time, then he went to the cow-shed and found the cot vacant on which her husband used to sleep. She found dead body of the deceased lying in the verandah of the cowshed facing towards the ground. She also noticed injuries on the dead body and when she started crying, many people gathered there. She immediately rushed to the police station but in the way the she met A.S.I. Krishan Chand (PW 16) and made a statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A cursory look at Ext. P-6 the statement of Smt. Kaushalya Devi as recorded by the Investigating officer on the basis of which F.I.R. (Ex. P-28) was registered shows that there is a ring of truth in it and the name of the accused had been disclosed. PWs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi and Smt. Rano Devi were subjected to searching crossexamination but nothing material could be extracted out of them which could shake their credibility. The presence of the accused at the house of the deceased on 11-7-1991 as stated above has been admitted by the accused himself under Section 313, Cr.P.C. It has come in the evidence of hostile witness Krishan Chand that all the villagers are afraid of accused on account of his quarrelsome habits and he too is afraid of the accused. Thus, it appears that P W Krishan Chand has not deposed the truth under the fear of the accused. As stated above, the accused was knowing that the deceased used to sleep in his cow-shed which is at a distance of about 100 yards from his house which fact is even otherwise admitted by him. The deposition of PW Kaushalya Devi, Rano Devi, Gulzari Lai, Des Raj (PW 13), Bhadur Singh (PW 14) and documents Exts. P-19 to P-26 go to show that the accused had been quarrelling with the deceased, his family members and even with his own father Babu Ram. We have no hesitation in remarking that the conviction of the accused founded as it is on the evidence which is overwhelming in volume and unimpeachable in character is unassailable and above challenge. The witnesses examined in this case are the most natural witnesses. They have given vivid and consistent account of the occurrence. No discrepancy can be pointed” out in their evidence. The mere fact that the witnesses are members of the same family and highly interested would not mean that the prosecution case, howsoever, true, should be thrown out for this reason. After noticing the evidence PWs 2, 3 and 4 we are left with the impression that they are truthful witnesses. They have given evidence in a straightforward manner and we are unable to discover any reason to discredit their testimony. They have given natural version and there is a ring of truth in that.
18. In the normal course of human conduct, no relation would leave out the real culprit and falsely implicate the innocent person. The witnesses have full opportunity to identify the accused. A person may falsely implipate his enemy in place of his real culprit but this is likely only when he is not sure about the identity of his assailant. We have no reason to doubt that the witnesses have tried to falsely implicate the accused. There is thus, no ground whatsoever made out to doubt the genuineness of the ocular evidence of these witnesses. The prosecution has conclusively established and proved the second and third circumstances which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and rules out the possibility of any other hypothesis, except the one that it was the accused only who has committed the murder of the deceased Basant Singh and further that the accused had also an opportunity to commit the crime.
19. The fourth circumstance is the medical evidence which fully supports the prosecution version that it was a case of homicide and that the deceased had died because of Asphyxia due to throttling.
20. The last circumstance is the natural conduct of the accused. The subsequent conduct of the accused is also such which clearly goes to show that it was he who killed the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased was his neighbour. On coming to know about the death of Basant Singh the natural conduct of the accused would have been to participate in the cremation, in case he was innocent. However, instead of participating in the cremation, he absconded from the village. A.S.I. Krishan Chand (PW 16) has deposed that in spite of his best efforts, he could not arrest the accused on 12th and 13th July because he had run away from the village and ultimately, the accused was arrested on 14th July, at the Railway Station Bharmar. This circumstance by itself may not be, of any conclusive evidentiary value but it is a circumstance which cannot be ignored while considering the other evidence connecting the accused with the crime. The other evidence is convincing and reliable in this case and subsequent conduct of the accused assumes some importance in the chain of circumstances.
21. Thus, the aforesaid evidence clearly established and proved that the accused many times tried to harm the deceased) He had given beatings to the deceased and his son PW Gulzari Lal on earlier occasions. It has also been established that the accused is a quarrelsome person and everbody in the village is afraid of him and nobody wanted to annoy him for any reason. In view of the aforestated discussion and scrutiny of evidence the combined effect of all proved circumstances is conclusive in establishing guilt of the accused and his conviction thus would be quite justified.
22. The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the accused are maintained.