Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramswaroop vs State on 28 September, 2018
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
(1 of 13) [CRLA-920/2011]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 920/2011
Ramswaroop S/o Shri Puran Ram, by Caste Meghwal, R/o Chak
12, G.B., P.S. Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
(At present confined in District Jail, Hanumangarh.)
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhagat Dadhich, Amicus Curiae
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment Per Hon'ble Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J 28/09/2018 The counsel for the appellant had pleaded no instructions in the matter, therefore, on 27.09.2018 Mr. Bhagat Dadhich, learned counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue on behalf of the accused-appellant and the matter was adjourned for hearing on 28.09.2018.
The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant Ramswaroop against the judgment dated 02.09.2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.16/2011 by which the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 302, 323 & 342 IPC and sentenced as under:
(2 of 13) [CRLA-920/2011] Under Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default thereof to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.
Under Section 323 IPC: Six months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.
Under Section 342 IPC: Six months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.
The prosecution story emanates from the fact that on 25.02.2011 a telephone call was received by Shri Ranveer Singh, SHO, Police Station Rawatsar (PW-7) in which it was informed that Ramswaroop who lives in Gandheli has killed his wife, therefore, after recording this information in the Rojnamcha (Daily Diary) as DD entry No.1499(Ex.P-17), he reached the place of incident, where a written complaint (Ex.P-1) was submitted by Bhaira Ram (PW-4), the father of the deceased Anjana on the same day. In his complaint, Bhaira Ram stated that his daughter Anjana was married to Ramswaroop S/o Purn Ram, R/o 12 GB, Tehsil Vijaynagar, Sri Ganganagar. After keeping his daughter well in the first two years of marriage, the accused started beating her and when all conciliation proceedings failed, a case for the offence under Section 498 IPC was filed against the accused Ramswaroop. The relationship remained strained for sometime but after counselling by the Court, they started living normally for last six months. On 24.02.2011 Ramswaroop killed his wife Anjana in his home town Gandheli and after beating his son he was locked in a separate room. On the next day i.e. 25.02.2011 in the morning when neighbours heard the noise of crying of the child, they (3 of 13) [CRLA-920/2011] entered into the house by scalling the wall and saw that the kid (son of deceased Anjana) was weeping in the room. The room was locked from outside. He was taken out of the room and on entering the other room they saw that Anjana was lying dead in a pool of blood. On asking the kid Mayank, he told that his father has killed his mother Anjana and after giving beatings to him he was locked in another room. On the aforesaid complaint, a formal FIR was registered and the matter was investigated by the police.
After completion of investigation a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 302, 323 and 342 IPC was filed against the accused-appellant.
Learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused- appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 323 and 342 IPC for committing murder of his wife Anjana and causing injury to his son Mayank and the same was read over and explained to him but he denied the charges and sought for trial in the matter.
During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and 28 documents were exhibited.
The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he is innocent. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as his father-in-law does not want his family to settle down nicely because his wife is a Govt. teacher and his father-in-law wants her entire salary because he used to say that he had imparted education to his daughter and had spent a lot of money on it. He further stated that his wife was having illicit relations with Vijay Lal and Madan Lal and one of them has killed his wife and has levelled false allegations against him for which a false charge has (4 of 13) [CRLA-920/2011] been framed against him. The witnesses have falsely deposed against him on asking of his father-in-law.
Learned trial Court after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration the statements of witnesses and after going through the same, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 02.09.2011.
For appreciating the facts in detail, we have gone through the statements recorded during the trial along with documents produced and exhibited before the trial Court.
The most important witness in the present case is the PW-1 Mayank who is son of the deceased Anjana and the accused- appellant Ramswaroop. At the time of incident Mayank was aged about 7 years. He is also an injured eye-witness to the incident. He has stated that his mother's name is Anjana Madam and his father has killed his mother. In winter his father gave beatings to him by Ghotia. His mother was also given beatings on her leg, face, right and left cheek. While his father was beating his mother, he was present in the room which was having a bed. When this incident happened his mother was doing the domestic work. She was teaching in the school also. When his mother was beaten, he was sleeping in another room but on hearing the noise, he came to that room and tried to intervene but he was also given beatings by the Ghotia on his face and neck by his father and was locked in another room. His father strangulated his mother. He was taken out of the room by Budiya Nani and at that time along with Budiya Nani there was one more little girl and a number of people. His Nana (maternal grandfather) reached the spot in the day time. In the cross examination of this witness, nothing contrary to his examination-in-chief came on record.
(5 of 13) [CRLA-920/2011] PW-2 Jadai is the neighbour who has stated in her statement that while she was going to get milk in the morning, she heard the noise of crying coming from the house of Anjana Madam. She called Modu Kamad and Naurang Khati who reached there. She got the door opened and after opening the door brought PW-1 Mayank who is lovingly called 'Tinu' out of the house. There were swelling on the mouth of 'Tinu'. On their asking, the boy told them that his father has killed his mother and he had locked him in the room.
PW-3 Modu Kamad has also stated on the same lines as stated by PW-2 Jadai.
PW-4 Bhaira Ram is the father of the deceased Anjana who has stated that Anjana was teaching in a school and after some time of marriage the relationship between Ramswaroop and Anjana got strained. Ramswaroop was asking for money from Anjana therefore she filed a case for the harassment for dowry against Ramswaroop. On 25.02.2011, he received a call at around 7.15 AM from Naurang Khati that the son of Anjana is crying in the room, therefore, he should come. On reaching the house of Anjana, he saw lot of people were sitting outside and his grandson Mayank was having injuries on his face and mouth. On asking, Mayank told that his father has killed his mother and after giving beatings to him he locked him in the room. On this he lodged a complaint and attested the memos prepared by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.
PW-7 Ranveer Singh, who is the Investigating Officer in the present case stated in his statement that while working as SHO, P.S. Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh on getting the information on telephone, he reached the place of incident where Bhaira Ram (6 of 13) [CRLA-920/2011] (PW-4) gave him a written complaint on which he conducted the investigation in the present case. During the course of investigation, he visited the spot, recorded the statements of witnesses, arrested the accused, made the recoveries and conducted the investigation as per procedure.
PW-8 Dr. Hanuman Singh while working as In-charge Primary Health Centre, Rawatsar, conducted the postmortem of the dead body along with Dr. Bhidasara and Dr. Renu Gupta. In his statement, he stated that there were a number of injuries present on the body of the deceased which were lacerated wound, bruises on the face, number of bruises on nose and mouth, higher bone trachea and larynx were also damaged/injured. He has given in detail the injuries present on the body of the deceased and submitted that the cause of death in the opinion of the Board is asphyxia due to strangulation and excessive bleeding. The strangulation was antemortem type and the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course.
Ex.P-11 is the recovery memo of one blue coloured jeans pant and one cream coloured shirt which were blood stained and the same were recovered on the information supplied by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which is Ex.P-19. Ex.P-12 is the weapon of offence i.e. blood stained wooden Ghota which was also recovered at the instance of the accused.
Ex.P-21 is the postmortem report of the deceased Anjana wherein the cause of death is mentioned as asphyxia due to strangulation and the injuries are antemortem in nature.
Ex.P-20 is the Forensic Science Laboratory report. As per the report there was presence of blood of human origin on the (7 of 13) [CRLA-920/2011] articles i.e. Chadar, Pant, Shirt and Ghota which have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.
Ex.P-22 is the injury report of Mayank wherein there is lacerated wound of 1 X ½ X ½ cm on the mandible. The said report also mentions the other injuries which were on the face of the injured. Ex.P-23 is the X-Ray report of injured Mayank.
We have heard learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record of the trial Court.
Learned Amicus Curiae has vehemently argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case as there is no reason for him to kill his wife. He has been falsely implicated on the pretext that relationship between him and his wife was strained and there was also a case under Section 498-A IPC filed against him by his wife. His father-in-law was pressing for giving the salary of the deceased daughter to him as he had spent lot of money on her education. He has further submitted that his son has been tutored to depose against him by his father-in-law. The other witnesses also are under the influence of his father-in-law and has deposed against him in this case.
Learned Amicus Curiae on the strength of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda; AIR 1976 S.C. 2488 and Shahid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan; (2016) 4 SCC 96 has submitted that the statement of PW1 Mayank was taken after a delay of three days and, therefore, the same is not worth any credence as it has lost the significance of being a statement of eye-witness.
In State of Orissa Vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda; AIR 1976 S.C. 2488, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
(8 of 13) [CRLA-920/2011] "Wherein in a murder case the entire prosecution case depended on the evidence of a person claiming to be eye-witnesses and this witness did not disclose the name of the assailant for a day and a half after the incident and the explanation offered for non- disclosure was unbelievable, held that such non- disclosure was a serious infirmity which destroyed the credibility of the evidence of the witness and that the High Court was correct in rejecting it as untrustworthy and acquitting the accused affirmed the judgment." In the case of Shahid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan; (2016) 4 SCC 96, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.20 has held as under:
"20. The statements of PW 25 Mirza Beg and PW 24 Mohamed Shakir were recorded after 3 days of the occurrence. No explanation is forthcoming as to why they were not examined for 3 days. It is also not known as to how the police came to know that these witnesses saw the occurrence. The delay in recording the statements casts a serious doubt about their being eyewitnesses to the occurrence. It may suggest that the investigating officer was deliberately making time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye-witnesses to be introduced. The circumstances in this case lend such significance to this delay. PW-15 Mirza Majid Beg and PW-24 Mohamed Shakir, in view of their unexplained silence and delayed statement to the police, do not appear to us to be wholly reliable witnesses. There is no corroboration of their evidence from any other independent source either. We find it rather unsafe to rely upon their evidence only to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The high Court has failed to advert to the contentions raised by the appellants and reappreciate the evidence thereby resulting in miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the case against the appellants has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt."
Alternatively, learned Amicus Curie has also argued that since the husband and wife were in a room and because of sudden fight between them the present incident took place in which the deceased sustained injuries at the hands of the appellant but (9 of 13) [CRLA-920/2011] there was no motive or intention of the appellant to cause death of his wife Anjana. The deceased was given only few blows by wooden Ghota that too were in spur of the moment. Since, there was no intention of the accused-appellant to kill his wife, the case does not travel beyond Section 304 Part part II IPC.
Learned Amicus Curiae has relied upon the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Golla Yelugu Govindu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; WLC (SC) Crl. 2009(2) 73 and Hastimal Vs. State of Rajasthan; 2010(2) CJ Cri. (Raj.) in support of his alternative submission.
Learned Amicus Curiae therefore prays that conviction order dated 02.09.2011 for the offence under Section 302 IPC may be converted to Section 304 part II IPC and the appellant may be released on the sentence already undergone by him.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned Amicus Curiae and submitted that the prosecution had been able to prove the case against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The chain of events and the statements of PW-1 Mayank the injured eyewitness getting corroborated from the statements of neighbours clearly show that it is only the appellant who has killed his wife Anjana and none else. He further submits that accused has also given blows from the Ghotia to his son Mayank who tried to intervene and has also received injuries in the present case which clearly shows that petitioner had intention to kill his wife. The recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused and the weapon of offence i.e. wooden Ghota on the information given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act proves the commission of offence against the accused-appellant in no uncertain terms.
(10 of 13) [CRLA-920/2011] He therefore prays that the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and found the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 302, 323 & 342 IPC.
He therefore submits that judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court does not require any interference by this Court as the prosecution has been able to prove the offence committed by the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the same is required to be upheld.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submission made at bar and the material place before us.
The testimony of Mayank PW-1 is unflinching and credible in the present case as his presence at the time of incident is quite natural being son of the accused-appellant and the deceased. He has witnessed the incident, thus, there is no reason for us to disbelieve this ocular evidence and further during the course of incident he had also sustained injuries which is clear from injury report (Ex.P-22) and the X-Ray report (Ex.P-23). Apart from the testimony of Mayank, the prosecution witnesses PW-2 Jadai and PW-3 Modu have categorically stated in their statements that when they heard Mayank crying in their house, he was brought out of the house who, on asking, stated in front of everybody that his father has killed his mother.
We are not impressed by the arguments of learned Amicus Curiae that there was delay in taking the statement of eye-witness PW-1 Mayank by the police and in the meantime he has been tutored by his maternal grandfather. It has come in the statements of PW-2 Jadai and PW-3 Modu that when Mayank was brought out of the house, on asking, he informed that his father has killed his mother. The statements of PW-2 and PW-3 (11 of 13) [CRLA-920/2011] corroborates the statement of PW-1. Therefore, the delay of 3 days in recording the statement of Mayank will not come in the way in the present case. Moreover immediately after the incident Mayank has told everybody present on the spot that his father has killed his mother.
We also note that in the circumstances, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Brahmananda Nanda and Shahid Khan (Supra) relied upon by learned Amicus Curiae are clearly distinguishable in the facts of the present case. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 cannot be doubted and disbelieved as tutored.
The injuries sustained by the deceased during the course of incident and the cause of death i.e. asphyxia due to strangulation corroborates the version of witnesses of prosecution specially the injured eye-witness PW-1 Mayank.
The recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused- appellant i.e. Jeans Pant and Shirt and also the weapon of offence i.e. Ghota on the information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act fortifies the prosecution story.
The presence of blood of human origin on the articles sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory clearly establishes the fact that the appellant was the only person who killed his wife Anjana and no none else.
The two cases relied upon by the learned Amicus Curiae for converting the sentence of the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC into Section 304 Part II IPC are clearly distinguishable on the facts as in the case of Golla Yelugu Govindu (supra), it has come on record that there was heated altercation and quarrel between the accused and the deceased and because (12 of 13) [CRLA-920/2011] of the sudden quarrel, the incident took place whereas in the present case the same is conspicuously absent. Hence, the present case is clearly distinguishable in the facts of the present case.
Another judgment relied upon by learned Amicus Curiae in the case of Sahid Khan (supra) is distinguishable on the ground that there was no corroboration of the eye-witness but in the present case there is complete corroboration of the eye-witness with the recovery and medical evidence.
Therefore, both the cases aforesaid are having no help to the accused in the present case. Even the fact that since Mayank is the son of the accused-appellant and the deceased Anjana, there is no reason that he will depose against his father for extraneous consideration, further, there is nothing on record to show or suggest that he was in any way tortured.
The injuries sustained by the deceased also corroborates the version of the witnesses of prosecution specially PW-1 Mayank, the cause of death is asphyxia due to strangulation and the injuries sustained during the course of incident. The recovery of blood stained clothes worn by accused i.e. Jeans Pant and Shirt and also the weapon of offence i.e. wooden Ghota on the information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the Forensic Science Laboratory report stating the presence of blood of human origin on these article clearly establishes the fact that the appellant was the only person who killed his wife Anjana and no other person. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding the accused guilty of the offence charged against him. The learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record while convicting the appellant for the offences (13 of 13) [CRLA-920/2011] under Sections 302, 323 and 342 IPC vide order dated 02.09.2011.
In view of whatever stated above, we find no force in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed and the judgment of conviction dated 02.09.2011, passed by the learned trial Court is upheld.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (NIRMALJIT KAUR),J
Ramesh/4/WCL
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)