Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sukha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 7 August, 2019
Bench: Sabina, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
1. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1165/2014
1. Ramchandra S/o Shri Motiram Mahla Jat, R/o Lachhadi Tehsil
Ladnoo, District Nagaur.
2. Suresh S/o Shri Bhanwara Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Charan Ka Baas
Police Station Nechhwa District Sikar
Both are at present in District Jail Sikar.
----Accused-Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through PP.
----Respondent
2. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 30/2015 Sukha Ram S/o Munna Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Charan Ka Bas, Police Station Nechhwa, District Sikar at present lodged in the District Jail Sikar.
----Accused-Appellant Versus State Of Rajasthan Through PP.
-----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar Advocate and Mr Ashvin Garg Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Chaudhary for the State. For Complainant : Mr Ripu Daman Singh Naruka Advocate HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Order 07/08/2019 (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 10:51:43 PM) (2 of 10) [CRLA-1165/2014] Vide this order above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of.
Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of report lodged by complainant Triloka Ram. As per the complainant, on 11.10.2009 at about 8.30-8.45 p.m., he was going towards their fields along with his father to check if there were any stray animal in the fields. On the way, they were intercepted by Sukha Ram, Banwari, Ramdevaram, Ramchandra, Bhanwar Lal (mentioned as Bhanwararam in the judgment), Suresh and 2/3 unknown persons. The said persons were armed with Sticks, Axe and Gandasi. The said persons stopped them and told them that they indulge in fighting quite a lot and they would be done to death. The said persons inflicted injuries to the father of the complainant with Sticks, Axe and Gandasi. Mother and Sister of the complainant also rushed to the spot and raised alarm. Thereafter, the said persons fled away from the spot. The motive behind the incident was that there was some dispute going on between the father of the complainant and appellant Sukha Ram for many days.
On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR No. 105 dated 11.10.2009 was registered at Police Station, Nechhwa, District Sikar under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against appellant Sukha Ram. Thereafter, appellants; Ramchandra, Suresh and Bhanwar Lal were summoned on an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr. P.C. (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 10:51:43 PM) (3 of 10) [CRLA-1165/2014] Charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/149 IPC.
Appellants did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses, during trial. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. So far as appellants Suresh, Ramchandra and Bhanwar Lal are concerned, they took up the plea of alibi.
Appellants examined nine witnesses in their defence. Trial court vide impugned judgment/order dated 02.12.2014 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/149 IPC. Hence, the present appeals by the appellants.
Learned counsel for appellants; Ramchandra, Suresh and Bhanwar Lal has submitted that the said appellants were found innocent, during investigation. In-fact, the said appellants were not present at the spot and had been later falsely arrayed as accused. The alleged eye-witnesses were not present at the spot and had not witnessed the occurrence. Eye-witnesses had been later introduced by the prosecution to falsely involve the appellants in this case.
Learned counsel for appellant-Sukha Ram has submitted that appellant-Sukha Ram has been falsely involved in this case. In-fact, appellant-Sukha Ram was a patient of leprosy and was unable to handle an Axe and inflict injuries to any person. Eye- witnesses had not witnessed the occurrence and it was a case of (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 10:51:43 PM) (4 of 10) [CRLA-1165/2014] blind murder. No independent witness from the area had been produced as witness to the incident. Incident had occurred in a populated area. There were houses of different persons near the place of incident.
Complainant while appearing in the witness box as PW-8 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. He has specifically deposed that Sukha Ram had given an Axe blow on the head of his father. Banwari and Ramchandra had given Gandasi blows to his father. The other accused had given injuries with Sticks to his father.
PW-2 Pepi Devi, wife of the deceased and PW-3 Manisha, daughter of the deceased have corroborated the statement of PW-8.
PW-6 Doctor Nirmal Singh deposed that on 12.10.2009, he had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Bhanwar Lal. He proved the postmortem examination report Exhibit-P-9. A perusal of Exhibit-P-9 reveals that the deceased had suffered twenty injuries. The cause of death of the deceased was opined to be severe head injury resulting from fracture of right and left parietal bone and right frontal bone. A perusal of the injuries suffered by the deceased reveals that the deceased had suffered multiple fractures.
PW-9 Vijendra Singh deposed that on 11.10.2009, he had been posted as Station House Officer, Nechhwa. On the basis of a written report submitted by Triloka Ram, formal FIR was registered.
Exhibit-P-10 Panchayatnama of deceased Bhanwar Lal was prepared. Blood stained clothes of the deceased were taken in (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 10:51:43 PM) (5 of 10) [CRLA-1165/2014] possession from the hospital vide Exhibit-P-11. Dead body was handed over to the complainant after postmortem examination. Site plan Exhibit-P-13 of the place of occurrence was prepared. From the spot, blood stained earth as well as plain earth were lifted and were taken in possession. He had recorded statements of the witnesses without any addition or omission. Appellant- Sukha Ram was arrested vide memo Exhibit-P-2. At the time of arrest of the appellant-Sukha Ram, one blood stained shirt was taken in possession. On the basis of disclosure statement suffered by appellant Sukha Ram, one blood stained Axe was recovered from the disclosed place at the instance of appellant Sukha Ram. Appellant Ramchandra was arrested vide Memo Exhibit-P-1. On the basis of disclosure statement suffered by appellant Ramchandra, one Stick was recovered from the disclosed place at the instance of the appellant. Site plan of the place of recovery was prepared and the Stick was taken in possession.
DW-1 Hanuta Ram deposed that on 11.10.2009, he had gone to look out for his lost buffalo along with Sheoram. When they reached Charan Ka Bas at about 8.30 p.m. near a shop, he saw that three persons were inflicting injuries to a man. They left the spot and on the next day, they came to know that a murder had been committed at Charan Ka Bas. He knew Ramchandra. Ramchandra was not inflicting injuries to the deceased. He did not know the persons, who were inflicting injuries to the deceased.
DW-2 Parmanand deposed that he knew Ramchandra. On 11.10.2009 at about 5.00 p.m., he had gone to Lachhadi and at about 7.00 p.m., he had gone to the shop of Ramchandra. Ramchandra was running a cement shop and was present there. (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 10:51:43 PM)
(6 of 10) [CRLA-1165/2014] He took meals at the house of Ramchandra and had stayed with him up to 9.00 p.m. On the next day, he came to know that Ramchandra had been apprehended in connection with a murder case. Ramchandra was not involved in the murder and had been falsely involved in the case. His statement was recorded by the police.
DW-3 Peetha Ram deposed that on 10.10.2009, he had gone to village Tanwara along with Bhanwar Lal. He stated that Bhanwar Lal was with him on the day of incident. Bhanwar Lal and Suresh were not involved in the murder-in-question.
DW-4 Vilas Jakhad deposed that he knew Suresh. On 11.10.2009, he had played with Roopa Ram and Suresh. At about 7.30 p.m. after playing, they came to the house of Suresh and took meals. Thereafter, he returned to his hostel, whereas, Suresh stayed back at his residence. Suresh had been falsely involved in the present murder case.
DW-5 Indrapuri Goswami deposed that he knew Ramchandra, who was earlier working with Indian Army. Now Ramchandra had taken cement agency and was running a shop. On the day of incident, Ramchandra was present at the shop. He was present in the shop of Ramchandra from about 8.00 to 9.00 p.m. DW-6 Chouthu Ram deposed that Peetha Ram and Bhanwar Lal were present in his fields on 11.10.2009 and had left in the morning on 12.10.2009 after taking tea etc. They had taken meal at his place at night.
DW-7 Sheoram has corroborated statement of DW-1. (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 10:51:43 PM)
(7 of 10) [CRLA-1165/2014] DW-8 Bhanwar Lal S/o Narayan Ram deposed that on 11.10.2009, Suresh was present in his rented house from 7.40 p.m. to 8.45 p.m. Suresh was not involved in the present murder case.
DW-9 Sajjan Singh deposed that he had investigated the present case and had recorded statements of witnesses. During his investigation, it transpired that Ramchandra, Suresh and Bhanwar Lal S/o Ramu Ram were innocent and were not present at the spot at the time of incident.
Present case relates to murder of Bhanwar Lal. Case rests on eye-witness account.
Prosecution has examined three eye-witnesses i.e. PW-2 Pepi Devi, PW-3 Manisha and PW-8 Triloka Ram. The said witnesses have deposed that they had witnessed the incident. PW-8 was accompanying his father/deceased at the time of incident. A perusal of the statement of PW-8 reveals that there was some dispute between Sukha Ram and his father. Sukha Ram along with his sons and others had come to the spot. PW-8 Triloka Ram has not attributed any specific overt act to appellants Ramchandra, Suresh and Bhanwar Lal. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-8 had attributed specific overt act to appellant Sukha Ram and his sons. So far as PW-2 Pepi Devi is concerned, she has stated that when she reached the spot, all the appellants were inflicting injuries to her husband. PW-3 Manisha has also deposed that all the appellants were inflicting injuries to her father with their respective weapons. During investigation of the case, blood stained Axe was recovered at the instance of appellant Sukha Ram. Blood stained shirt (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 10:51:43 PM) (8 of 10) [CRLA-1165/2014] belonging to Sukha Ram was also taken in possession during investigation.
As per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, the blood group on the clothes of the deceased as well as the Axe recovered from appellant Sukha Ram and the shirt of the appellant Sukha Ram were having blood group 'A'.
A perusal of the site plan Exhibit-P-13 reveals that occurrence had taken place at point 'X', whereas, the same had been witnessed by the eye-witnesses from the shop of Jodha Ram. There appears to be no obstruction in between the shop of Jodha Ram and the place where the incident had occurred. Hence, the witnesses must have been in a position to witness the incident, which had occurred at point 'X'.
Since the assailants were armed with weapons, son of the deceased must have got scared. The statements of the eye- witnesses with regard to involvement of appellant Sukha Ram in the crime being natural inspires confidence.
So far as the plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that appellant Sukha Ram was suffering from leprosy is concerned, there is no medical evidence on record in this regard to establish that the said appellant was unable to inflict injury with an Axe to the deceased.
Although, as per Exhibit-P-2 arrest memo of appellant Sukha Ram, it has been stated that he was having some handicap with regard to his hands and feet, but in the absence of medical evidence, it cannot be said that appellant Sukha Ram was unable to inflict injuries to the deceased with an Axe. Moreover, no such plea has been taken by appellant Sukha Ram when he was (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 10:51:43 PM) (9 of 10) [CRLA-1165/2014] examined under Section 313 Cr.p.c. The statement of appellant Sukha Ram recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. is duly signed by him.
Keeping in view the number of injuries on the person of the deceased, it is evident that the injuries had been inflicted on the person of the deceased with an intention to commit his murder. Thus, so far as appellant Sukha Ram is concerned, the eye- witness account is duly corroborated by medical evidence as well as the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Exhibit-P-21.
So far as appellants Ramchandra and Suresh are concerned, they were found innocent during investigation. PW-9 Investigating Officer in his cross-examination has deposed that during investigation, he found that appellants Ramchandra, Suresh and Bhanwar Lal were not present at the spot. He did not present challan against appellants Ramchandra, Suresh and Bhanwar Lal as they were not found present at the spot. The said part of the statement of the Investigating Officer is corroborated by defence witnesses examined by the said appellants. The witnesses examined by appellants Ramchandra and Suresh in their defence were, in-fact, cited as prosecution witnesses, but were not examined by the prosecution during trial and were examined by the said appellants in their defence.
Accordingly, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1165/2014 is allowed. Appellants Ramchandra and Suresh are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Consequently, impugned judgment/order passed by the trial court dated 02.12.2014 qua appellants Ramchandra and Suresh are set aside. Appellant Ramchandra who (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 10:51:43 PM) (10 of 10) [CRLA-1165/2014] is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case.
In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant-Ramchandra S/o Shri Motiram Mahla Jat is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.
So far as appeal filed by appellant Sukha Ram is concerned, his conviction and sentence as ordered by the trial court under Sections 302 and 323 IPC is concerned, the same is maintained. However, his conviction and sentence as ordered by the trial court under Sections 147 and 148 IPC is concerned, the same are set aside. With this modification, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.30/2015 stands disposed of.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)J. (SABINA)J.
Sanjay Kumawat-22
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 10:51:43 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)