Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sohan Lal vs State on 13 February, 2013
Bench: Govind Mathur, Vijay Bishnoi
D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
1. D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.733/2006
Sohan Lal
vs.
State of Rajasthan
2. D.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.650/2006
Seeta Ram alias Dhuda Ram & Anr.
vs.
State of Rajasthan
Date of Judgment : 13th February, 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Mr M.K.Garg, for the appellants
Mr K.R.Bishnoi-Public Prosecutor
BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE VIJAY BISHNOI, J.)
These two appeals have been preferred by the accused-appellants against the impugned judgment dated 17.05.2006 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases and Additional Sessions Judge, Merta (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.17/05 (33/04), whereby the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as under:
Under section 302/34 IPC : Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo four months' simple imprisonment.
Under section 201/34 IPC : Five years' rigorous D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006 2 imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo two months' simple imprisonment.
Under section 379 IPC : Two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's simple imprisonment.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Brief facts of the case are that on 05.09.2004, Asgar Ali (PW.1) has informed the police about a dead body lying in the limits of village Harsaur. On receiving this information, SHO, Police Station Thanwla reached the spot at about 10:30 AM, where PW.1 Asgar Ali submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) to the police. The police prepared a Crime Details Form (Ex.P/2) and recovered the dead body and also seized a blood stained handkerchief, ornaments found on the dead body, a shoe, plastic bottle, matchbox, blood stained stones, keys of vehicle etc. from the spot. Post mortem of the dead body was conducted on spot by a Medical Board of three Doctors and the post mortem report (Ex.P/5) was prepared, in which the Doctors have given their opinion as under:
"On the Basis of Above findings & facts we all members of Medical Board Giving a final opinion that this person is died due to cumulative effect of compound fractures of skull, Brain damage and haemorrhage. Time duration of death of this unknown 25-30 years of aged D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006 3 (probable) person is between 12 to 24 hours before."
As per the endorsement made on Ex.P/1, the SHO, Police Station Thanwla, after reaching the police station, lodged an FIR No.124/2004 against unknown persons for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 IPC. The dead body was identified by PW.10-Prema Ram and he claimed that dead person is his brother Raju Ram son of Jagdish Prasad, by caste Nai, resident of village Pawa, Police Station Khunkhuna, District Naguar. On 05.09.2004, the police has recorded the statement of PW.10 Prema Ram, in which he has stated that yesterday on 04.09.2004, his brother Raju Ram left the village for Deedwana by morning bus; in the evening Raju Ram informed him on telephone that he is carrying Rs.4,45000/- with him and is coming back to village in the jeep of accused-Sita Ram along with accused- appellants Sita Ram, Vinod and Sohan Lal. When Raju Ram did not come by 09:00 PM, PW.10 Prema Ram inquired about him on telephone from Sita Ram, who informed that Raju Ram went to Rajapura in a Jagran. He, thereafter, along with Sita Ram went to Chhoti Khatu and inquired about Raju Ram but did not find Raju Ram. In the morning, when he contacted Sarpanch Purna Ram, Purna Ram made inquiries from the police station and from where he got information that a half burnt dead body is found near village Harsaur. On receiving this information, PW.10 Prema Ram along with some villagers went to village Harsaur and there he identified the dead body D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006 4 of Raju Ram on the basis of gold ring and madalia. It is further stated by PW.10 Prema Ram that yesterday on 04.09.2004 at about 5:00 PM, deceased Raju Ram was with accused-appellants and those persons have killed Raju Ram.
During the coruse of investigation, the police also recorded the statement of PW.13 Mohammed Ishaq, who has stated that on 04.09.2004 at about 4:30-5:00 PM, deceased Raju Ram came to his house and told him that he arranged money for buying a Bolero Jeep and at that time, Sita Ram and two other persons were with him.
The police also recorded the statement of PW.8- Kana Ram, who has stated that on 04.09.2004 at about 6:00 PM, when he was standing at bus stand of village Badabara, he saw Raju Ram and Sita Ram in a jeep sitting in the front side, whereas two other persons were sitting on the rear side of the jeep.
Statements of PW.19 Daulat Singh were also recorded by the Police, wherein he has stated that on 04.09.2004 when he was sitting in front of Police Station, Deedwana, accused-appellant-Vinod, who belongs to his village Gachhipura, came there in jeep No.RJ20-C-7712 and on seeing him, came near to him, at that time he was accompanied by accused-appellants Sita Ram, Sohan Lal and deceased-Raju Ram.
During investigation, on 07.9.2004, police arrested the accused-appellants-Sita Ram, Sohan Lal and Vinod vide Ex.P/13, P/17 and P/20 respectively. Recoveries of D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006 5 blood stained clothes, money and weapon were made at the instance of the accused-appellants.
After due investigation, challan was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Degana against the accused-appellants for the offences under sections 364, 302/34, 201/34 and 379 IPC. The matter was then committed to the Court of Sessions, Merta, from where it was committed to the trial court for trial.
The trial court framed the charges against the accused-appellants for the offences under sections 364, 302/34, 201/34 and 379 IPC. and the same were read over to them, which they denied and claimed for trial.
During trial, the prosecution has got examined as many as 24 witnesses and produced documentary evidence (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/72). Statements of accused persons were recorded under section 313 CrPC, wherein they denied the prosecution evidence and negated allegation of commission of the crime. In defence, as many as 06 witnesses were produced and 07 documents (Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/7) were exhibited.
The learned trial court, after considering the evidence produced by the prosecution and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 17.05.2006, convicted and sentenced the accused- persons under sections 302/34, 201/34 and 379 IPC. However, acquitted them from the offence under section 364 IPC.
D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006 6 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial court, the accused- appellants have filed these present appeals before this Court. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS:
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the case against the accused-appellants is of no evidence as there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution is based purely on circumstantial evidence. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the accused- appellants that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellants on the basis of the evidence produced by it before the trial court as the circumstances, from which the inference of guilt of accused-persons can be drawn, have not been established by the prosecution. It is further contended that the circumstances on which the prosecution has relied do not form a chain of events and, therefore, the learned trial court has erred in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under sections 302/34, 201/34 and 379 IPC. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has also contended that the recovery of the alleged money, blood stained clothes and the weapon of offence has not been proved by the prosecution beyond doubt. He has contended that the last seen evidence produced by the prosecution is also not reliable and in such circumstances, the conviction of the accused-appellants based on circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained.
Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006 7 contended that the prosecution has sufficiently proved and completed the chain of events and the circumstances cumulatively and unerringly pointed towards the guilt of the accused and, therefore, there is no illegality in convicting the accused-appellants for the offences under sections 302/34, 201/34 and 379 IPC.
From the facts of the case, it is clear that the case of the prosecution is purely based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident and in this case there is no direct evidence of the crime. The prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence. It is an accepted proposition of law that even in cases where no direct evidence is available in the shape of eye-witnesses, etc. a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence alone.
In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 1952 SC 343, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.10, has held as under:
"10. It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should 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 a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006 8 words, there must be a chain of evidence so far 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 within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
In Naseem Ahmed vs. Delhi Admn. reported in (1974) 3 SCC 668, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"This is a case of circumstantial evidence and it is therefore necessary to find whether the circumstances on which the prosecution relies are capable of supporting the sole inference that the appellant is guilty of the crime of which he is charged. The circumstances, in the first place, have to be established by the prosecution by clear and cogent evidence and those circumstances must not be consistent with the innocence of the accused. For determining whether the circumstances established on the evidence raise but one inference consistent with the guilt of the accused, regard must be had to the totality of the circumstances. Individual circumstances considered in isolation and divorced from the context of the overall picture emerging from a consideration of the diverse circumstances and their conjoint effect may by themselves appear innocuous. It, is only when the various circumstances are considered conjointly D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006 9 that it becomes possible to understand and appreciate their true effect."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pawan vs. State of Uttaranchal, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 259 has held as under:
"14. When a case rests on circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the oftquoted tests viz.:
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards [the] guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human [probabilities] the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
15. Where the entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence, great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence to ensure that the circumstances on which the prosecution relies are wholly consistent with the sole D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006 10 hypothesis of the guilt of the accused." In Abubucker Siddique & Anr. vs. State, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"Undoubtedly, in this case there is no direct evidence of the crime. The prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence. It is an accepted proposition of law that even in cases where no direct evidence is available in the shape of eyewitnesses, etc. a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence alone."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Goraksha Ambaji Adsul reported in (2011) 7 SCC 437, while dealing with the case of circumstantial evidence, has held as under:
"Eeven in a case of circumstantial evidence, if the prosecution is able to establish the chain of events to satisfy the ingredients of commission of an offence, the accused would be liable to suffer the consequences of his proven guilt."
In another judgment rendered in Nagesh vs. State of Karnatak, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 477, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"It is neither possible nor prudent to state a straitjacket formula or principle which would apply to all cases without variance. Every case has to be appreciated on its own facts and in the light of the evidence led by the parties. It is for the court to D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006 11 examine the cumulative effect of the evidence in order to determine whether the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt or that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt."
In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, now we have to examine whether in the present case, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond doubt and the circumstantial evidence available in this case is complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused-appellants but should be inconsistence with their innocence and whether the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused-appellants and none else.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE AGAINST ACCUSED-SITA RAM PW.10 Prema Ram has stated in his statement recorded before the trial court that on 04.9.2004, deceased Raju-Ram informed him on telephone that he is carrying Rs.4,45,000/- and is returning to the village in the jeep of Sita Ram along with Sita Ram, Vinod and Sohan Lal.
PW.13 Mohammed Ishaq has stated in his statement that on 04.09.2004, deceased Raju Ram, along
with Sita Ram and two others accused-appellants, came to his D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006 12 house and told him that he arranged money for buying a Bolero Jeep and thereafter, he left with the accused- appellants in the jeep.
PW.8 Kana Ram has stated in his court statement that on 04.09.2004 in the evening, when he was standing on the bus stand of village Badabara, he spotted one jeep coming from Deedwana in which Sita Ram and deceased Raju Ram were sitting in the front side and two persons were sitting on the rear side.
PW.19 Daulat Singh has stated in his statement that on 04.09.2004, he was posted at Police Station, Deedwana and in the evening at about 4:00-5:00 PM, he was sitting outside the police station, then Vinod Kumar came there to meet him and at that time, three persons namely Sita Ram, deceased Raju Ram and Sohan Lal were with him. They stayed there for about 10 minutes and thereafter left in the jeep.
During the course of investigation, the police, at the instance of accused-Sita Ram, recovered blood stained clothes vide Ex.P/28 and a sum of Rs.24,000/- vide Ex.P/29, and the keys of vehicle seized by the police near the dead body were identified by Sita Ram vide Ex.P/14. The blood stained clothes recovered from accused-appellant-Sita Ram were sent for chemical examination in the Chemical Examination Report (Ex.P/69) and it is found that the clothes recovered from accused-appellant Sita Ram have contained the blood of 'A' group.
D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006 13 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE AGAINST ACCUSED-VINOD PW.10 Prema Ram has stated in his statement that on 04.09.2004, deceased Raju Ram informed him on telephone that he is carrying Rs.4,45000/- and is returning to the village in the jeep of Sita Ram along with accused Vinod, Sohan Lal and Sita Ram.
PW.13 Mohammed Ishaq has stated that on 04.09.2004, deceased-Raju Ram came to his house to meet him and he was accompanied by accused-appellants Vinod and Sita Ram. It has also been stated by him that deceased- Raju Ram left his house in a jeep along with accused- appellants Vinod, Sita Ram and one another person.
PW.19 Daulat Singh has stated in his court statement that on 04.09.2004, Vinod met him outside the Police Station, Deedwana along with accused-appellants Sohan Lal and Sita ram and deceased Raju Ram.
The police, at the instance of accused-appellant Vinod, has recovered Rs.3,17,500/- vide Ex.P/21, the blood stained clothes vide Ex.P/23 and a blood stained knife vide Ex.P/31. In the chemical examination report (Ex.P/69), it is found that the clothes recovered, at the instance of the accused-appellant Vinod, are stained with blood of group 'A'. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE AGAINST ACCUSED-SOHAN LAL PW.10 Prema Ram has stated in his statement that on 04.09.2004, deceased Raju Ram informed him on telephone that he is carrying Rs.4,45000/- and is returning to the village in the jeep of Sita Ram along with accused Vinod, D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006 14 Sohan Lal and Sita Ram.
PW.19 Daulat Singh has stated in his court statement that on 04.09.2004, Vinod met him outside the Police Station, Deedwana along with accused-appellants Sohan Lal and Sita ram and deceased Raju Ram.
The police, at the instance of accused-appellant- Sohan Lal, recovered a sum of Rs.75,000/- vide Ex.P/18 and blood stained clothes vide Ex.P/27. In the chemical examination report (Ex.P/69), it is found that the clothes recovered, at the instance of the accused-appellant Sohan Lal, are stained with blood of group 'A'. CONCLUSION The unnatural death of Raju Ram has been proved from the post mortem report as well as from the statement of PW.22 Dr. Rajendra Kumar, who was one of the Member of the Medical Board.
PW.10 Prema Ram in his statement has stated that he was informed by deceased-Raju Ram on telephone that he along with accused-appellants Sita Ram, Vinod and Sohan Lal is returning to village in the jeep of accused- appellant Sita Ram. PW.8 Kana Ram, PW.13 Mohammed Ishaq and PW.19 Daulat Singh have stated that they saw deceased-Raju Ram along with accused-appellants in the evening of 04.09.2004.
The witnesses viz. PW.10, PW.8, PW.13 and PW.19 have given their statements before the trial court and more or less given the same version which they have given in D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006 15 the police statements recorded under section 161 CrPC. The defence has failed to impeach the evidence of above said witnesses during their cross-examination. From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, it is clear that in the evening of 04.09.2004, the accused-appellants were seen in the company of deceased and they left Deedwana along with deceased for village Pawa. However, deceased-Raju Ram never reached his house and his half burnt body was recovered on the next day in the morning at village Harsaur.
The prosecution has fully proved that the accused- appellants have voluntarily given information under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act about the money and blood stained clothes, which were recovered at the instance of the accused- appellants. The blood stains found on clothes, recovered at the instance of accused-appellants were matched with the blood group found on the clothes of deceased. It is also pertinent to note here that all the witnesses of recoveries have verified the recovery memos. PW.4 Mukna Ram, PW.5 Parsa Ram, PW.8 Kana Ram, PW.9 Hakam Ali, PW.11 Purna Ram, PW.13 Mohammed Ishaq and PW.21 Hemaram were subjected to cross-examination in detail but all the witnesses have verified that recoveries of money and the blood stained clothes were made at the instance of the accused-appellants. The prosecution has also proved that the seals on articles, sent for chemical examination, remained intact till they reached in the laboratory for examination.
The circumstances detailed above clearly establish D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006 16 that on 04.09.2004, deceased Raju Ram went to Deedwana in the morning, he remained there till evening and arranged Rs.4,45,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a Bolero Jeep and while returning to his village in the jeep of Sita Ram along with accused-appellants, the accused-appellants with the intention to grab the money, killed the deceased-Raju Ram near village Harsaur and, thereafter, set the dead body of deceased Raju Ram on fire by pouring petrol on it with intend to destroy the evidence.
The accused-appellants have failed to give any explanation regarding the money recovered at their instance. They have also failed to give any explanation regarding the blood stains found on their clothes matched with the blood group of deceased-Raju Ram.
The recovery of the money and blood stained clothes, at the instance of the accused-appellants, is fully proved. From the chemical examination of the blood stained clothes, recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant, it is also proved that the clothes contained human blood of group 'A' belonging to the deceased-Raju Ram.
All the above circumstances clearly prove that the evidence produced by the prosecution is complete and show that in all human probabilities, the accused-appellants have murdered the deceased-Raju Ram and, thereafter destroyed the evidence.
In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution D.B.CRIMINAL APPEALS NO.733/2006 & 650/2006 17 against the accused-appellants are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-appellants and, therefore, the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in convicting the accused-appellants for the offences under sections 302/34, 201/34 and 379 IPC.
In the result, both these appeals preferred by the accused-appellants are hereby dismissed. (VIJAY BISHNOI),J. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. m.asif/-