Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satyanarian And Ors vs State on 30 July, 2019
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 583/2015
1. Satyanarain S/o Ramlal, Age about 48 years, By Caste
Kalal, R/o Surajpole, Banswara (Raj.)
2. Nanak Ram S/o Puniyaji, Aged about 52 years, By Caste
Aadhiwasi, R/o Katumbi, P.S. Danpur, District Banswara
(Raj.)
3. Kalu Ram S/o Laxman, Age about 32 years, R/o Dairy
Bhamriyapada, P.S. Aambapura, District Banswara (Raj.)
(Presently lodged in Central Jail Udaipur)
----Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr.K.R.Bhati.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Anil Joshi, Public Prosecutor.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
JUDGMENT
Date of Reserve : 01/05/2019
Date of Pronouncement : 30/07/2019
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA,J.)
Reportable The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants for assailing the judgment dated 8.6.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No.40/2011 whereby, they have been convicted and sentenced as below:
Offence u/s. Sentences Fine In default
302 r/w 120B I.P.C. Life imprisonment Rs.25000/- 5 months'
each S.I.
201 I.P.C. 3 years' R.I. Rs.2000/- 15 days'
each S.I.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM)
(2 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are that the appellant Satyanarain S/o Ramlal Patel gave an oral information (Ex.P49) at MGH Banswara on 7.1.2009 at 8.30 PM wherein, he alleged that he and his wife Nirmala were proceeding from Ratlam to Banswara on their motorcycle. They had reached just ahead of Chhoti Sarwan at about 6.30 PM in the evening. He felt nature's call upon which, he parked the motorcycle on the road and went off the road to ease himself. The driver of a truck No.RJ06.GG2714 drove his truck in a very rash and negligent manner and at a high speed towards the spot where the motorcycle was parked and where Nirmala was standing and collided his truck with the motorcycle and Nirmala, due to which, she expired at the spot. On the basis of this report, an F.I.R. No.5/2009 (Ex.P50) was registered at the Police Station Danpur for the offences under Sections 279 and 304A I.P.C. and investigation commenced. Nirmala's body was subjected to postmortem and the site was inspected. Both the vehicles involved in the accident i.e. the truck as well as the motorcycle were seized/detained. During the course of investigation, Nirmala's father Shri Rajmal submitted a written complaint (Ex.D3) to the District Superintendent of Police, Banswara stating inter-alia that Satyanarain had hatched a conspiracy and had murdered Nirmala while giving the incident the shape of an accident. Even before lodging the said complaint, Rajmal had earlier appeared at the Police Station and had raised a suspicion regarding the accidental death of Nirmala. Rajmal alleged in the complaint that Nirmala's son Manoj had been killed in an accident in the year 2005. The person responsible for causing the accident was a driver named Kalu Ram known to Satyanarain. Satyanarain collected the (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (3 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] insurance claim amount to the tune of Rs.20 lacs upon the death of Manoj.
On this complaint, the investigation changed direction and the call details of the phones held by Satyanarain, Nanak Ram (the driver of the offending truck) and Kalu Ram, the person responsible for causing the collision leading to the death of Manoj were procured. The statements of Nirmala's brother Manohar Lal, mother Smt.Dakha Bai and sister Smt.Lata were recorded. Documents pertaining to the charge-sheet filed in the case of accidental death of Manoj were procured from the P.S. Kotwali, Banswara. The documents pertaining to the insurance claim filed after the death of Manoj were procured from the LIC Office, Banswara as per which, a total sum of Rs.20,88,925/- was reimbursed to Satyanarain upon the death. The judgment in the case of MAC No.424/06 was also taken on record as per which, a total sum of Rs.3,99,000/- was awarded to Satyanarain by way of compensation upon the death of Manoj. The Investigating Officer conducted thorough investigation and found that in the said incident, the offending vehicle was being driven by Kalu Ram, who was closely associated with Nanak Ram, the driver of the truck involved in the death of Nirmala. Kalu Ram was employed as the driver of Satyanarain. The mobile call details were analyzed and it was found that in the month preceding the incident, large number of calls were exchanged between Satyanarain and Kalu Ram. Likewise, Kalu Ram and Nanak Ram were in touch with each other through mobile calls during this period. All three i.e. Satyanarain, Nanak Ram and Kalu Ram were in regular contact with each other through mobile calls on the day of the incident i.e. 7.1.2009. Just 15 minutes before the incident, the mobile phones of all three (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (4 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] were in close proximity as per the mobile tower locations. All the three suspects were summoned by the S.H.O. P.S. Danpur for interrogation, but they avoided to appear before him. When Satyanarain felt the noose tightening on himself, he tried for settlement and exoneration and confessed about the crime before his own relatives Suresh Chandra and Sanjay Kumar and thereafter, he sent them to the complainant party with the prayer that Rajmal should be advised to bury the hatchet and settle the matter. Sanjay Kumar and Suresh Chandra told Manohar Lal, brother of the deceased of this proposal. On this, Manohar Lal approached the Investigating Officer and divulged these facts to him. Manohar Lal's subsequent statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. The statements of Suresh Chandra and Sanjay Kumar were also got recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. wherein, both the persons stated that Satyanarain met them at Banswara and confessed before them that he had conspired with Kalu Ram and driver Nanak Ram to have Nirmala eliminated by the vehicular collision so that the incident could be given the shape of an accident. He requested Suresh Chandra and Sanjay Kumar to talk to his in-laws for a compromise and get him out of trouble. On the basis of the mobile call details and the statements of Suresh Chandra and Sanjay Kumar, the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B I.P.C. were added to the case and those under Sections 279 and 304A I.P.C. were removed. Satyanarain, Nanak Ram and Kalu Ram were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.P3, Ex.P2 & Ex.P1 respectively. Upon being interrogated, they confessed to have committed the offence. The mobile phones and the sims used by these accused for conferring/conspiring with each other were recovered and seized. (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM)
(5 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] Satyanarain was subjected to stringent interrogation regarding the insurance policies of Nirmala, on which, he divulged that he had taken five insurance policies in her name from the following companies:
Policy No.12062853 HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company, Banswara Police No.0104985905 Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance, Banswara Policy No.00232446 Sahara India Life Insurance, Banswara Policy No.105421857 Bharatiya Jeevan Bima Nigam, Banswara Policy No.4000015463 I.D.B.I. Insurance Company All the above policies were drawn out during the period between 2.8.2008 to 1.9.2008. The Investigating Officer concluded that Satyanarain had started hatching a design to get Nirmala killed through a vehicular collision six months before he could manage to execute his plan. Had he succeeded in achieving his ulterior motive, he would have gained a sum of Rs.14,13,000/- by way of reimbursement of insurance policies. Interrogation was made from the truck driver Nanak Ram, who disclosed that one Raju was employed as a Khalasi on the offending truck on the date of the incident. Raju extricated himself from the conspiracy hatched by the other accused four hours before the incident was perpetrated. Thus, Raju was examined as a witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and his statement was also got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The documents regarding the sale of the offending truck to Kalu were collected.
Upon completion of investigation, the offences under sections 302, 201 and 120B I.P.C. were found proved against all the three accused. The Investigating Officer, also concluded that Satyanarain owned a jeep on which, Kalu Ram was employed as a driver about 4-5 years ago. The jeep was sold in December 2005 (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (6 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] whereafter, Satyanarain purchased an Ambassador car and engaged Kalu Ram to drive the same. The car fell in the Banswara Canal on 11.12.2005 and in this accident, Manoj son of Satyanarain expired. Satyanarain filed a case of accident at the P.S.Kotwali in which, charge-sheet was filed against Kalu Ram for causing the accident by rash and negligent driving. Satyanarain received LIC reimbursement and accident claim money to the tune of about Rs.25 lacs out of the death of Manoj. He gifted a sum of Rs.50,000/- from this amount to Kalu Ram. Both developed a friendly relationship thereafter. After about a year from the death of Manoj, Satyanarain's son Lalit was married to a girl named Swati. Lalit went to Kuwait after marriage and in his absence, Satyanarain developed an illicit affair with Swati. Nirmala vehemently opposed this immoral relationship due to which, she and Satyanarain used to quarrel frequently. Satyanarain started feeling that his wife was an obstacle in the way of his unhindered illicit affair with Swati and thus, he hatched a plan to eliminate Nirmala. He took out 5 insurance policies in the name of Nirmala in July 2008. The purpose behind this plan was twofold; firstly, to eliminate Nirmala so that the affair with Swati could be continued in an unhindered manner and secondly to reap the benefit of insurance policies. After the insurance Policies had been procured, Satyanarain contacted Kalu Ram and asked him to search for a person, who would agree to kill Nirmala in a vehicular collision. Kalu Ram contacted his maternal uncle (Mama) Nanak Ram resident of Katumbi for the said purpose. The deal for the grisly job was settled between Satyanarain and Kalu Ram for a sum of Rs.3 lacs. Kalu Ram promised Nanak Ram that he would be paid a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs. Nirmala had gone to her father's house at (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (7 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] Kushalgarh between 25.12.2008 to 30.12.2008. In this period, Satyanarain called Kalu Ram to Banswara. The truck No.RJ06.G.2714 which would be used for the murder, was purchased from a man named Narendra Singh (P.W.25) for a sum of Rs.1,72,000/-. Kalu Ram, Nanak Ram and Satyanarain contacted each other through mobile on 29.12.2008 and met at Daylab Talab. Satyanarain paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Kalu Ram as advance for purchasing the truck and the remainder of Rs.2,50,000/- was agreed to be handed over after execution of the conspiratorial design. On the same day, Kalu Ram and Nanak Ram went to the shop of financer/dealer Gaurang Pandya (P.W.13) where, they paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Narendra Singh and executed an agreement and took the truck in their possession. For the rest of the amount, Gaurang Pandya and Kishan Singh (P.W.14) promised to provide finance facilities. The conspiracy to kill Nirmala was hatched at Banswara on 29.12.2008 and the truck was also purchased on the very same day. Presence of Kalu Ram and Nanak Ram was established at Banswara on 29.12.2008 by their call detail records. A thorough analysis of the call detail records of the three accused was done by the Investigating Officer which establishes that all the three accused conferred with each other on numerous occasions on 29.12.2008. The truck was purchased and was parked at the house of Nanak Ram. On 6.1.2009, Satyanarain called Kalu Ram and asked him to come down to Banswara. Both met at the Upadhyay Park, Banswara. Satyanarain told Kalu Ram that he and his wife would be going to Ratlam on the next day i.e. on 7.1.2009. While coming back, he would park the motorcycle on the road side near Danpur after switching on the parking indicators. His wife would be standing (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (8 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] near the motorcycle. He himself would maintain some distance under the pretext of easing himself and at that time, the collision should take place. Some amount was paid to Kalu Ram and the conspiracy was finalized. The tower details of Kalu Ram and Satyanarain's mobile established their presence to be at Banswara on 6.1.2009. On 7.1.2009, Nanak Ram was at his house. Raju Khalasi R/o Katumbi was with him. Nanak Ram told of the conspiracy to Raju Khalasi and assured him that no harm would be caused to him. Satyanarain took Smt.Nirmala and started for Ratlam from Banswara on his motorcycle. Before starting, Satyanarain called Kalu Ram on his mobile phone and apprised him that they were starting for Ratlam. This call was made at 7.07 AM. Kalu Ram called Satyanarain on his mobile phone at 12.09 PM and at that point of time, Satyanarain's location was at Ratlam. Kalu Ram and Nanak Ram talked to each other with their mobile phones 4 to 5 times between 12.14 PM to 4.00 PM. Nanak Ram and Raju Khalasi came to Chhoti Sarwan at about 2 O'clock. Kalu Ram also came there and all three met at the village Chhoti Sarwan. Kalu Ram gave the precise details to Nanak Ram and paid him a sum of Rs.3000/-. The Khalasi Raju had to attend some function at village Senavasa and thus, he went away at 3 O'clock. However, Raju had heard the accused talking of the conspiracy and thus, he was aware of their plan. He divulged so in his statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Satyanarain called Kalu Ram from his mobile phone which was located at Selana M.P. and shared his location. This call was put through at 5.26 PM, at which point of time, Kalu Ram's location was at Danpur. Nanak Ram also came down to Danpur with the offending truck. Kalu Ram called Satyanarain and asked him for (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (9 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] the latest location. Kalu Ram again called Satyanarain at 6.16 PM. Kalu Ram called Nanak Ram at 6.32 PM and asked him to be prepared. At 6.35 PM., Satyanarain called Kalu Ram from Danpur and shared his location. Immediately thereafter, at around 6.39 PM, Kalu Ram called Nanak Ram with his mobile phone who took the hint and started following Satyanarain's motorcycle. Thereafter, the collision was orchestrated as narrated earlier.
With these conclusions, the Investigating Officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the three accused in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Banswara for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B I.P.C. Since the offences were sessions triable, the case was committed and transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Banswara. The Fast Track Courts were abolished whereafter the file was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara for trial.
The trial court framed charges against the accused for the offences mentioned above. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses and got exhibited 63 documents in support of its case. Upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. The accused Satyanarain took a pertinent defence that the incident was an accident pure and simple. The accused Kalu Ram claimed that he had been falsely implicated because he was arraigned in the earlier case of the accidental death of Satyanarain's son Manoj. Accused Nanak Ram claimed to be absolutely innocent. Though the accused sought time to lead defence evidence but finally, no oral evidence was led on their behalf. After appreciating the (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (10 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and after appreciating and sifting the entire evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence, this appeal.
Shri Kalu Ram Bhati, learned counsel representing the appellants vehemently and fervently raised the following submissions in order to crave overturning of the impugned judgment and for seeking acquittal of the appellants:
• That the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated.
There is no evidence worth the name on the record of the case to establish the fact that the death of Nirmala was homicidal and not accidental.
• That the witnesses of the prosecution have spoken a bunch of lies while deposing against the appellants. • That Rajmal and Manohar Lal being the father and brother respectively of Nirmala filed two separate complaints which are full of such grave discrepancies and contradictions which cannot be explained/reconciled. The discrepancies are so vivid and stark that the same go to the root of the matter and completely destroy the evidentiary worth of these two witnesses.
• That the call details which the Investigating Officer procured during the investigation have not been proved as per law. Rather the Investigating Officer could not collect satisfactory evidence to establish that the mobile numbers in question were issued in the name of the accused or were employed by them.
• That the theory of conspiracy between the accused Satyanarain, Kalu Ram and Nanak Ram is just a figment of (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (11 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] imagination of Investigating Officer and is not based on any substantive admissible evidence.
He further urged that no adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that the accused Satyanarain took reimbursement of the insurance policies pursuant to death of his son and tried to encash those of his wife because as per him, this was a natural consequence of the death of the insured, whereafter, the accused appellant Satyanarain, being the legal heir/nominee of the insured, was lawfully entitled to seek reimbursement of the insurance policies.
He, therefore, implored the Court to set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused of all the charges.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned defence counsel and urged that the facts collected by the Investigating Officer after thorough investigation, which included scientific evidence in form of call and tower details of the mobile phones held by the three accused, indubitably lead to the only logical conclusion that not only did Satyanarain get his son Manoj murdered earlier but thereafter, his greed and lust exceeded all metes and bounds and he got his own wife murdered after hatching a conspiracy with Kalu Ram and Nanak Ram. Learned Public Prosecutor referred to the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and that recorded at the trial and urged that the following facts are duly established against the accused:
• That Satyanarain got reimbursement of the insurance policy claims pursuant to the death of his son Manoj in the year 2005.
(Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM)
(12 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] • Kalu Ram was the driver of vehicle in which Manoj was travelling and died.
• Satyanarain and his wife Nirmala were not on good terms because he was involved in an illicit affair with his younger daughter-in-law Swati.
• That the accused Satyanarain took out 5 insurance policies in the name of Nirmala just six months before her death. • Satyanarain revived his ties with Kalu Ram and both were in collusion with each other ever since the insurance policies were got prepared and thus, the only idea behind preparation of the policies was to get the same encashed by ensuring that Nirmala would meet a premature death. With this objective, both of them hatched a conspiracy through mobile conversations as well as in person. • That the call details and the tower locations of the mobiles of the three accused which were proved by proper evidence and certification, unexceptionally establish the fact that the three accused were in touch with each other and establish that they were involved in a full fledged conspiracy. • That in furtherance of this malicious design, the accused Satyanarain helped Kalu Ram and Nanak Ram to procure the offending truck which would be used for making the collision. • That Satyanarain took Nirmala to Ratlam after apprising Kalu Ram of this fact. He continued to update his location to Kalu Ram. Finally, just 15 minutes before the incident, Satyanarain called Kalu Ram and told him that he would be stopping the motorcycle at the place which had been predestined for the collision. Satyanarain parked his motorcycle on the road feigning to Nirmala that he was going (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (13 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] to ease himself. The parking lights of the motorcycle were switched on so that the truck driver could pin point and identify the same for carrying out the conspiratorial design. Nanak Ram drove the truck at a high speed and intentionally collided the same with the stationary motorcycle near which the unfortunate woman (Nirmala) was made to stand and in this manner, she was murdered.
• That all these facts are well and truly established by the clinching evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation.
Learned Public Prosecutor thus sought dismissal of the appeal and affirmation of the impugned judgment.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have gone through the record.
Before dealing with the submissions advanced at the Bar, we would like to briefly advert to the evidence led by the prosecution in the following manner:
P.W.1 Manohar Lal:
The witness being the brother of the deceased Nirmala stated that his sister Nirmala was married to accused Satyanarain 25 years ago. About three years before the incident in hand, Satyanarain started harassing and humiliating Nirmala physically as well as mentally. Whenever Nirmala came to the maternal home, she would complain to Manohar Lal and his father Rajmal.
On one occasion, Nirmala confided in Manohar Lal that her son Lalit had gone to Kuwait after his marriage and in his absence, Satyanarain had developed an illicit extra marital affair with Swati, wife of Lalit. She also told him that she was tolerating ill behaviour so that her family's reputation might not be tarnished. The witness (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (14 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] went to the house of Satyanarain on the occasion of the Dhundh ceremony of Lalit's child. There, they tried to counsel Satyanarain and advised him to refrain from his immoral behaviour. The witness claimed that he talked to Swati as well, who told him that he should ask his brother in law to mend his ways and that she herself was afraid of being maligned in the society. However, Satyanarain did not relent. Nirmala came to visit Manohar Lal in the last week of December 2008 and during this period, she expressed an apprehension that her husband might kill her. On 30.12.2008, Nirmala went back to her husband's house. On 7.1.2009, he heard the news of the death of Nirmala. He also stated that Nirmala used to tell him that she often heard Satyanarain talking to a person named Kalu and he was always asking him to wait for the correct moment. The witness further claimed that on 18.3.2009, Suresh Chandra and Sanjay Kumar approached and told him that Satyanarain met them at Banswara a couple of days back and confessed and admitted that he made a mistake. The Police was after him for the last few days. Sanjay had asked Satyanarain as to why he was so apprehensive when Nirmala had met with an accident, upon which, Satyanarain blurted out that he had got Nirmala murdered after hatching a conspiracy with Kalu and Nanak Ram and that he had given a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance to these persons for carrying out the evil design. Suresh Chandra and Sanjay Kumar asked Satyanarain as to why he had indulged in such a heinous act, on which, he stated that he had gone mad in lust for his daughter-in-law and thus, could not think rationally. He asked the witnesses to mediate with his in-laws for compromising the matter. In cross- (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM)
(15 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] examination conducted by the defence, the witness was
confronted with certain omissions and improvements vis-a-vis his complaint (Ex.D2) and his previous Police statements in which the witness did not mention that Sanjay Kumar and Suresh Chandra told him of the extra judicial confession made by Satyanarain. P.W.2 Rajmal:
The witness being the father of Manoharlal and the deceased Nirmala deposed on similar lines as stated by Manohar Lal P.W.1. In his cross-examination also, almost similar facts were elicited. He was asked about the reasons for delay in lodging of the complaint, to which, he offered an explanation.
We feel that as the accused had created a story of accident which was hard to discard, the complainant and his family members were put off the trail and hence, the delay in lodging of the report is well explained.
P.W.3 Amar Singh and P.W.4 Satyaveer Singh:
These witnesses were posted as Constables at the Police Station Kotwali, Banswara in the month of March 2009. They stood as Motbirs in the arrest memos of the accused appellants Kalu Ram, Nanak Ram and Satyanarain (Ex.P1,P2 and P3) and stated that a mobile phone each was found with the accused Satyanarain and Nanak Ram during their personal search which were seized. Nothing significant was elicited in their cross- examination.
P.W.5 Lalu:
The witness, being the Motbir of the seizure of the motorcycle and mobile SIM from the accused Kalu Ram did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM)
(16 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] P.W.6 Raju:
The witness was alleged to be the Khalasi on the truck of Nanak Ram and in whose presence, the accused allegedly hatched a part of the conspiracy. He too also did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. He resiled from his investigational statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
P.W.7 Smt.Lata:
The witness was the younger sister of Nirmala. She gave evidence on similar lines as stated by Manohar Lal and Rajmal. She too was confronted with her previous Police statement (Ex.D5). Nothing significant was elicited by the defence during the cross-examination conducted from this witness. P.W.8 Sita Ram:
The witness was associated as a Motbir in the recovery of the motorcycle and mobile effected at the instance of accused Kalu Ram. The witness did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile.
P.W.9 Dr.S.K.Bhatnagar:
The witness conducted the post mortem upon the body of Nirmala and issued the post mortem report (Ex.P11) wherein, in addition to numerous other injuries, a significant lacerated wound was noticed on her left temporal bone. The injuries were opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. P.W.10 Praveen Singh:
The witness was posted as a Constable in the Computer Branch of the S.P.Office Banswara. He took out the call details of the mobile SIM No.9783082401 (held by the accused Kalu Ram), (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (17 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] SIM No.9929660953 (held by the accused Satyanarain) and SIM No.9828459154. He stated that he downloaded the call details after receiving the same from the concerned service provider through email. He pertinently stated that the mobile No.9929660953 was issued to one Prabhu Lal and the mobile No.9783082401 was issued to Kalu. The witness also gave out the details of the call records and tower locations of these mobile numbers.
P.W.11 Laxmichand and P.W.12 Ramesh Chandra These witnesses stood as Motbirs in the Panchanama Lash of Nirmala and their evidence is formal.
P.W.13 Gaurang Pandya The witness stated that he was indulged in the business of financing, sale and purchase of vehicles. He identified the accused Kalu Ram and Nanak Ram and stated that these persons came to him for purchasing an old Tata truck No.RJ06.G.2714 owned by Narendra Singh. The deal was settled at Rs.1,72,000/-. The witness stood as a Motbir and an advance amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by Kalu and Nanak to Narendra Singh, who took possession of the vehicle. The defence tried to cross-examine the witness on the aspect that he did not know the two accused but he stood firm and stuck to the deposition made by him in the examination-in-chief, regarding identification of the accused and sale of the vehicle in his presence.
P.W.14 Kishan Singh:
This witness in his sworn testimony stated that he knew Kalu and Nanak from before and they had approached Gaurang Pandya, who brought them to him for the deal of the vehicle. He also (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (18 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] identified them in the court. He further stated that the deal was closed @ Rs.1,72,000/- for the truck No.RJ06.G.02714 Model No.1210. After the closure of the deal, the accused gave Rs.50,000/-. He was the one who gave the delivery of the said truck at the mill after receiving Rs.50,000/-. It was decided for the remaining amount that the same would be deposited within a month but the accused did not pay the same. He stated that the accused had come to take away the vehicle on 28 th December 2008. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the truck was not his but of Narendra Singh and the papers of the said truck were in the name of one Rajkumar. He was the driver of the said truck.
P.W.15 Ram Ratan Patidar:
The witness stated about the term plan issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India in the name of Nirmala on 23.7.2008. Nothing significant was elicited in the cross-
examination of this witness.
P.W.16 Suresh Chandra:
The witness stated that he was the cousin of Nirmala who was married to Satyanarain about 25-26 years ago. He stated that Satyanarain met him at Banswara on 18.3.2009. At that time, Sanjay Kumar cousin of the witness was also there. Satyanarain met them at the old Bus Stand and told that he wanted to talk to him with respect to Nirmala as the witness was related to both families. He took them to Upadhyay Park and told that the Police was breathing down his neck. The witness asked Satyanarain as to why the Police was pressing him when the death of Nirmala was accidental upon which, Satyanarain blurted out that Nirmala did (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (19 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] not die in an accident and that he had got her murdered after hatching a conspiracy with Kalu and Nanak Ram.
The witness further stated that Nirmala was suspecting Satyanarain of having illicit relations with their daughter in law Smt.Swati, wife of Lalit and also regarding the death of Manoj and often used to impute that he had got Manoj murdered. Satyanarain stated that he thought that his image would be lowered in the society and fearing retribution by Nirmala, he hatched a plan of eliminating her. He conspired with Kalu Ram and Nanak Ram. The deal was settled @ Rs.3 lacs. An advance amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to Nanak Ram and Kalu Ram and thereafter, the incident was perpetrated in the manner stated above. Satyanarain confessed in presence of the witness that he had committed a mistake and that he wanted to apologize to the maternal relatives of Nirmala and that they should be asked to compromise and drop the matter. The witness stated that he immediately approached the parents and brother of Nirmala and told them of this significant development. In cross-examination, the witness stated that Satyanarain was his brother-in-law (Jeeja). He was confronted with his previous Police statement regarding a few omissions and to be specific, the fact that Nirmala did not tell him that she was bearing a suspicion against Satyanarain regarding the death of Manoj. He was put the following questions regarding the omissions/improvements vis-a-vis his Police statement (Ex.P8) and the witness admitted that he did not state these facts when he was examined during investigation:
• That Nirmala used to suspect Satyanarain regarding the death of Manoj.
(Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM)
(20 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015]
• That Satyanarain was perturbed that his image might be
tarnished in the society.
• That Satyanarain stated that he had given a sum of
Rs.50,000/- by way of advance to Kalu Ram and Nanak Ram as hatchet money for killing Nirmala.
• That while returning back from Ratlam, Satyanarain parked the motorcycle on one side and went to the other side for easing himself.
• The witness was also questioned that there was an omission in his previous statement that he told of the extra judicial confession to the mother and father of Nirmala, on which the witness explained that the mother and father reside with her brother.
Other than these facts, no significant question was put to the witness in the cross-examination on behalf of Satyanarain. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of Kalu Ram and Nanak Ram, the witness admitted that he did not know Kalu Ram and Nanak Ram.
P.W.17 Sanjay Kumar:
The witness also gave evidence akin to what was stated by P.W.16 Suresh Chandra. Almost identical cross-examination was conducted from this witness as well.
What can easily be discerned from the evidence of both these witnesses is that no material suggestion was given to them regarding the truthfulness of their allegation regarding the accused Satyanarain having made the extra judicial confession in their presence. The minor omissions and contradictions in the (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (21 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] evidence of these witnesses harped upon by the learned defence counsel are far too trivial so as to attach much significance and do not dilute the evidentiary worth of these witnesses in any manner whatsoever.
P.W.18 Siraj Mohd.
The witness was posted as the ASI, who investigated the earlier F.I.R. involving accidental death of Manoj. He proved the charge-sheet of the said case.
P.W.19 Chandraveer Singh Chundawat:
The witness was posted as the Branch Manager in the Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company. He proved the insurance policies (Ex.P31 and P32) which were taken by the accused Satyanarain in the name of his wife Nirmala.
P.W.20 Ashok Dhankad:
The witness was posted as the Assistant Branch Manager in the HDFC Bank on the relevant date. He proved the insurance policy (Ex.P35) issued in the name of Nirmala from the HDFC Bank wherein admittedly the accused Satyanarain was nominee. P.W.21 Harish Agrawal:
The witness was posted as the Branch Manager in the Sahara India Life Insurance Company, Banswara on the relevant date. He proved the insurance policy (Ex.P36) issued in the name of Nirmala wherein admittedly the accused Satyanarain was nominee.
P.W.22 Prabhu Lal:
The witness was examined to prove the fact that he purchased the mobile SIM 9950428123. He stated that his mobile (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (22 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] went missing from the village Mahudi and he could not find the SIM again.
P.W.23 Kalu Singh:
The witness was posted as MTO in the Police line Banswara. He carried out the mechanical inspection of the truck and the motorcycle involved in the collision.
P.W.24 Narpat Singh:
The witness was posted as a Constable at the P.S.Danpur. He entered the truck No.RJ06.G.2714 as well as the mobile phone No.9950428123 in the records of the Malkhana. P.W.25 Narendra Singh:
The witness was examined to prove the fact that he purchased the truck No.RJ06.G.2714 from Rajkumar Jain through a power of attorney. He stated that he sold the said truck to Nanak Ram on 29.12.2008 for a sum of Rs.1,72,000/-. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid in advance and the possession of the vehicle was given to Nanak Ram. He presented and proved the original power of attorney issued by Rajkumar in his favour and so also reply to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act given to him by the Police Officials. No significant cross- examination was conducted from this witness on the aspect of the sale of the vehicle made to Nanak Ram on 29.12.2008. P.W.26 Manohar Singh:
The witness was posted as the ASI P.S.Danpur. He received the oral report of Satyanarain at the Govt. Hospital Banswara on the basis whereof, the F.I.R. No.5/2009 was registered regarding the alleged accidental death of Nirmala. He proved various documents prepared during the course of investigation of the said (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (23 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] F.I.R. He gave the notice (Ex.P47) under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act to Narendra Singh during the investigation of the said F.I.R. and his reply too was taken in response. The reply on the notice (Ex.P47) which was issued on 11.1.2009, clearly reads that the driver on the truck was Nanak Ram, resident of Katumbi.
It may further be noted here that at that point of time, there was no suspicion that the incident might take a turn of murder and thus, there could not have been any occasion for the Police Officials to manipulate these proceedings.
The witness further stated that during the course of the investigation of the said F.I.R., Shri Rajmal, father of the deceased, submitted a complaint suspecting foul play and thereafter, the investigation was handed over to the S.H.O. Bhanwar Singh. The witness was questioned regarding the power of attorney (Ex.P48) which was issued by the registered owner Rajkumar in favour of Narendra Singh on 9.1.2009. Considering the fact that all these events took place well before the complaint of foul play came to be submitted, manifestly, no malafides or lack of credibility can be attached to these proceedings. P.W.27 Smt.Dakhabai:
The witness is the mother of the deceased Nirmala. She stated about the illicit affair going on between Satyanarain and Swati and alleged that Nirmala used to complain to her of these affairs. They advised Satyanarain to refrain but he did not relent and continued his affairs. The witness came to Banswara on the occasion of the Dhundh ceremony organized on the birth of Lalit's daughter. At that time also, Satyanarain was advised to desist from his illicit affairs. She stated that Nirmala came to Kushalgarh (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (24 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] on 25.12.2008 and reiterated that Satyanarain was indulged in illicit affairs with Swati and on being told not to do so, he would torture Nirmala. The witness also stated that Nirmala used to confide in her that Satyanarain used to talk to a person Kalu on phone regarding some financial dealings. The witness was cross- examined and she stated that when the fact regarding the illicit affairs of the accused Satyanarain with Swati came out in open, Lalit was called from Kuwait. The defence gave a suggestion to the witness that after Lalit came to Banswara, the affair between Satyanarain and Swati ended which she replied in negative. She was also given a suggestion that Swati established these relations of her own volition, to which, she feigned ignorance. She admitted that Lalit and Swati were living together. The witness was put a question for explaining the reasons for delay in lodging the F.I.R. but she could not express anything in this regard. In cross- examination conducted on behalf of Kalu, the witness admitted that she and Nirmala did not know Kalu Ram.
P.W.28 Bhanwar Singh S.H.O. Police Station:
The witness carried out investigation of the case. He conducted investigation as per law, collected the detailed facts and evidence (which we have already catalogued in the beginning of the judgment) and filed a charge-sheet against the accused. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that even though a mobile phone was recovered from Satyanarain at the time of his arrest, still his P.C. remand was sought for recovering another mobile on the pretext that it was lost. The witness stated that the particular mobile instrument with the matching IMEI was not (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (25 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] recovered and that is why, remand was sought so that the instrument could be recovered.
The following indisputable facts can be culled out from the evidence available on record :
➢ That Nirmala used to complain to her matrimonial relatives that the accused appellant had developed an illicit affair with their daughter-in-law Smt.Swati wife of Lalit. ➢ That Satyanarain was counselled to terminate this illicit affair but he did not relent.
➢ That Nirmala came to the house of her brother Manohar Lal P.W.1 at Kushalgarh in the last week of December 2008 and stayed there for a few days. During this period, she expressed an apprehension that her husband might kill her. Nirmala went back with her husband on 31.12.2008 and the news of her demise was received on 7.1.2009. ➢ The accused took life insurance policies in the name of Nirmala for a significant sums of money from five different insurance companies just six months before the incident. In all these insurance policies, the accused Satyanarain was the sole nominee and his son Lalit was consciously excluded. ➢ That previously also, the accused had collected huge insurance and accident claim amount pursuant to the death of his son Manoj.
➢ That the person responsible for the accident of Manoj was none other than the co-accused Kalu but despite that the petitioner continued to remain in touch and maintained close relationship with Kalu till the death of Nirmala. (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM)
(26 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] ➢ That the appellant did not receive even a scratch in the
accident, in which, Nirmala was rammed to death by a truck. Very conveniently, he went to the side of the road under the pretext of easing himself.
➢ That the Police Officers recovered mobile phones from the accused Satyanarain, Kalu as well as Nanak Ram. The call details of the three mobile phones employed by the three accused were taken out by Praveen Singh P.W.10, who gave primary evidence thereof and a perusal of the call details clearly establishes that the three accused were constantly in touch with one another for six months prior to the incident at hand.
➢ That the accused Satyanarain started for Banswara from Ratlam with Nirmala and on the way, he called accused Kalu. The corresponding call logs and the tower locations of the mobile phones of the accused perfectly corroborate the theory put forth by the Investigating Officer that the accused Satyanarain parked the motorcycle on the selected spot at the road where the collision was planned. He called Kalu, who in turn, gave the signal to Nanak Ram through a mobile call. Thereafter, Nanak Ram started the truck and rammed the same into the stationary motorcycle, beside which the unsuspecting lady was standing.
➢ That the truck No.RJ06.G2714 used in the incident had been purchased by Kalu Ram on 29.12.2018 i.e. just 9 days before the incident. The entire consideration for the purchase of the truck was not paid to the seller.
(Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM)
(27 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] ➢ That after filing of the complaint and when the Police started snooping around and mounted pressure to investigate that the death of Nirmala was not accidental, the accused Satyanarain approached Suresh Chandra and Sanjay Kumar and made an extra judicial confession before them that he had got Nirmala eliminated and that her brother and father should be persuaded to withdraw the complaint. From the statements of both these witnesses, it is clear that no significant cross-examination was conducted from them regarding the extra judicial confession made by the accused Satyanarain before them to the effect that he got Nirmala eliminated in furtherance of a conspiracy hatched with Kalu and Nanak Ram.
➢ That the call details records which constitute unimpeachable scientific evidence, establish comprehensively that the accused-appellant Satyanarain was continuously in touch with Kalu, who in turn, was in touch with Nanak Ram from six months before the incident. The call details and the tower locations of the three phones on the day of the incident give rise to the following indisputable sequence of events: ➢ Before Satyanarain left for Ratlam (M.P.) with Nirmala on 7.1.2009 from Banswara, he called Kalu Ram and sounded him that he was leaving.
➢ At 12.09 PM, Kalu Ram talked to Satyanarain on his phone. At that time, location of Satyanarain was at Ratlam (M.P.). ➢ From 12.14 PM to 4.00 PM, Kalu Ram and Nanak Ram talked to each other 4-5 times.
(Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM)
(28 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] ➢ At around 2.00 PM, Nanak Ram and Raju Khallasi left for Chhoti Sarvan and Kalu Ram also reached Chhoti Sarvan by his motorcycle. The three met at Chhoti Sarvan. The tower locations corroborate this fact.
➢ At 5.26 PM, Satyanarain called Kalu Ram and informed him about his location.
➢ At 5.38 PM, Kalu Ram inquired about location of Satyanarain on his mobile.
➢ At 6.16 PM, Kalu Ram again enquired about his location. ➢ At 6.32 PM, Kalu Ram called Nanak Ram on his mobile (9950428123) and asked him to be ready.
➢ At 6.35 PM, Satyanarain (located at Danpur) called Kalu Ram and informed about his location.
➢ Kalu Ram kept Nanak Ram updated upto 06.45 PM and on his information, Nanak Ram picked up his truck and followed Satyanarain and Nirmala who were on their motorcycle RJ03.SC.0318 and at 6.45 PM executed the conspiratorial plan.
These conclusions drawn by us unflinchingly establish that the accused Satyanarain was indulged in an immoral extra marital affair with his own daughter-in-law Smt.Swati. Nirmala was opposed to this relationship and rightly so. She was trying to dissuade the accused Satyanarain from continuing the relationship. In this process, she threatened to expose him whereafter, Satyanarain hatched the evil design to eliminate her. In furtherance of this evil design, Satyanarain took out five life insurance policies in the name of Smt.Nirmala and nominated (Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM) (29 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] himself to be the beneficiary in the event of her death. Their son Lalit was not made a nominee in any of the life insurance policies. Previously also, Satyanarain had collected the insurance money of the policies which had been taken out in the name of his son Manoj, who too expired in a vehicular accident. He also took the motor accident claim amount from the court. Kalu Ram was the driver of the vehicle involved in that incident. However, inspite of the fact that Kalu Ram was responsible for the death of Manoj, his father Satyanarain, the appellant herein continued to remain in touch with Kalu Ram. The truck No.No.RJ06.G2714 used in the collision was purchased by Kalu Ram just 9 days before the incident. The call logs and mobile tower locations of the three mobile phones duly proved on record by Praveen Singh P.W. 10 conclusively establish that the accused Satyanarain called Kalu Ram from Ratlam while he was starting for Banswara with Nirmala as a pillion rider. He stopped on the way. Again called Kalu Ram, who in turn called Nanak Ram, who started the truck, drove it towards the direction where the deceased was reported to be standing and rammed the same into the stationary motorcycle, killing Nirmala at the spot. The accused Satyanarain made an extra judicial confession of the entire sequence of events before Suresh Chandra and Sanjay Kumar. The evidence of extra judicial confession inspires confidence and is corroborated by other attending circumstances.
Our conclusions are fortified by the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonu Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017)8 SCC 570:
(Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM)
(30 of 30) [CRLA-583/2015] "21.The STD booth receipt Exh.P44 showing a call made from STD booth having No.01398257974 from Shamli village in Uttar Pradesh was recovered from A4 at the time of his arrest on 22.01.2006. As per the receipt, a call was made to mobile No.9896001906 which belongs to Sonu (A5). Pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him, he identified the place at village Bai crossing on GT Road where he kept the key ring of motor cycle, silver ring belonging to deceased Ramesh Jain and the threatening letters. A golden ring of the deceased was also recovered from his residential house at village Ghasoli. He also made a disclosure statement which led the police to the place where the deceased was wrongfully confined. His SIM card with mobile No.9812016269 was seized from his residential house. There is sufficient evidence on record to suggest that he was in constant touch with the other accused. His mobile phone and the recoveries that were made pursuant to the disclosure statement would clearly prove his involvement in the crime."
In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm opinion that the trial court appreciated the evidence available on record in an absolutely just and apropos manner while concluding the guilt of the accused appellants herein. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity or shortcoming warranting interference in this appeal.
As a consequence, we find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed as such.
Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
/tarun goyal/
(Downloaded on 02/09/2019 at 12:44:38 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)