Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jagdish vs State Of Rajasthan Through P P on 10 July, 2018
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 1284/2017
Jagdish Son of Dharampal, by caste Meena, Resident of Radheki,
Police Station Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
(At Present In District Jail Sikar)
----Accused/Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
----Respondent
With
(2) D. B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 1444/2017
(1) Prakash son of Kanaram, aged 32 years, by caste Meghwal,
resident of Sesam, Police Station Losal, Tehsil Dantaramgarh,
District Sikar (Raj.)
(At Present In Central Jail, Bikaner)
(2) Jagdish Prasad Meena Son of Shri Dharampal meena, aged
43 years, resident of Radheki, P.S. Bamanwas, Tehsil
Bamanwas, District Sawaimadhopur.
(At Present In Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Accused/Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
----Respondent
With
(3) D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 1633/2017
Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh S/o Shri Bharti @ Bharat Lal by
caste Meena R/o Arniya Police Station Gangapur City Sadar,
(2 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017]
District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
----Accused/Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary with Mr.
Wasim Ahmed (In Appeal No.
1444/2017)
Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain (In Appeal
No. 1633/2017)
Mr. Mahendra Meena (In Appeal No.
1284/2017)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Raghav, Public Prosecutor.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment 10/07/2018 (Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq) These three appeals arise out of common incident with regard to which first information report was lodged by Shiv Bahgwan with Police Station Losal at 8.15 A.M. on 06 th March, 2009. Appeal No. 1284/2017 and 1444/2017 have been filed by the accused-appellants Jagdish and Prakash respectively against the judgment dated 01.06.2017 passed by the Court of Additional (3 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar (for short 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No. 48/2015. Appeal No. 1633/2017 has been filed by the accused-appellant Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh against the judgment dated 01.06.2017 passed by the trial court in Sessions Case No. 47/2015. By aforesaid two judgments, each of the accused-appellants has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 397 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' additional simple imprisonment and for offence under Section 397 read with Section 34 IPC, to ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' additional simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Facts of the case are that Shiv Bhagwan submitted a written report (Exhibit P-7 in trial of Prakash and Jagdish) to S.H.O. Police Station Losal at 8.15 A.M. on 06 th March, 2009 alleging therein that he along with his cousin Ram Chandra son of Goduram was present in the previous night i.e. 05.03.2009 at bus stand, Losal at about 8.00-8.30 P.M. Ram Chandra had recently purchased a Bolero vehicle bearing No. RJ-29 UA 261 5-7 days ago, which was parked at the bus stand. At that time, 3-4 persons came there and told that they wanted to hire Bolero vehicle to go to Kuchaman. Ram Chandra demanded a sum of Rs. 500/-. These persons agreed for that amount. Ram Chandra took these four persons in his Bolero Vehicle and started for Kuchaman. Ram Chandra was expected to return back in the same night.
(4 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] When he did not return back, the informant went to bus stand on the following morning and enquired about him. Durgaram son of Puraram told him that he had seen Ram Chandra quarreling with 3-4 persons in the Bolero Vehicle at Kuchaman Stand, Losal. He thought that they might be relatives of Ram Chandra. The informant alleged that these persons with the intention to loot the vehicle had hired the Bolero of Ram Chandra and eventually looted the vehicle. He apprehended that these persons might have subjected Ram Chandra to beating and thrown him en-route somewhere. It was prayed that action be taken against the culprits.
On the basis of aforesaid written report, the police registered FIR (Exhibit P-8) for offences under Sections 365 and 392 IPC and commenced investigation. After completion of investigation, charge sheet against the accused-appellants Prakash,Jagdish and Omprakash was filed for offence under Section 302, 397 read with Section 34 IPC. Charge sheet against accused-appellant Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh was filed with the aid of Section 299 Cr.P.C. for the same offences before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sikar. Subsequently, when he was arrested, supplementary charge sheet was also filed against him. The concerned Court committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Sikar wherefrom it was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar for trial. Separate trial for both sets of accused-appellants proceeded. As far as trial of accused-appellants Jagdish and Prakash is concerned, the trial court framed charges against them for offence under Section 302/34 and 397/34 IPC which they denied and claimed to be tried.
(5 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] Case of the accused Om Prakash was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board as he was found to be juvenile. The prosecution produced 27 witnesses and exhibited 58 documents. Though the defence did not produce any witness but exhibited 12 documents. Insofar as trial of Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh is concerned, the prosecution in that case produced 25 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents. The defence in that case also did not produce any witness but exhibited 5 documents. The aforesaid accused- appellants in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. alleged false implication. Upon completion of trial, the trial court by two separate judgments delivered on the same date convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated as above. Hence, these appeals.
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants Prakash and Jagdish has argued that the learned trial court has erred in law in mechanically convicting the accused-appellants. There being no eye witness, the case of the prosecution entirely hinges on circumstantial evidence. There are in the present case several missing links in the chain of circumstances sought to be proved against the accused-appellants, which even otherwise does not rule out every single hypothesis compatible with their innocence. Learned counsel argued that though as per case of the prosecution, alleged looted vehicle was intercepted by the patrolling party of Police Station Ratangarh in the night intervening 5 th and 6th March at about 2.30 A.M. Seizure memo of the Bolero Vehicle (Exhibit P-
36) which in fact was common seizure memo of not only Bolero Vehicle but also of keys, two mobile handsets and driving licence (6 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] of the deceased Ram Chandra. However, Chandra Prakash (P.W.24), S.H.O., Police Station Ratangarh has stated that driving licence of the deceased Ram Chandra was recovered from the pocket of Prakash and a sum of Rs. 110/- and 12 bore country made katta was recovered from the possession of Om Prakash. Learned counsel argued that arrest memo of Prakash (Exhibit P-
19) does not make any mention of factum of recovery of driving licence. This clearly shows that these recoveries have been planted and are nothing but police padding. It is argued that as per the statement of Chandra Prakash (P.W.24) when he after interrogation of the accused learnt that they after looting the vehicle committed murder of the driver, he telephonically contacted S.H.O., Police Station Losal and informed him about the arrest of the accused. This clearly shows that FIR was ante timed and that having come to know about arrest of accused and the loot of the vehicle and murder of Ram Chandra, written report was submitted in that manner.
Learned counsel argued that accused Prakash was shown arrested at 12.15 P.M. on 06.03.2009 vide Exhibit P-19. Complainant, Shiv Bhagwan (P.W.10) admitted that he also accompanied SHO to Police Station Ratangarh. Obviously, certain other persons of Losal also accompanied the complainant to Ratangarh. All these persons had seen the accused in the police station by which time their faces were open and it was for the first time that in the arrest memo prepared thereafter, it was mentioned that they were kept 'baparda'. In these circumstances, test identification parade of accused-appellant Prakash vide Exhibit P-14; acused-appellant Jagdish vide Exhibit P-15; accused-
(7 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] appellant Om Prakash vide Exhibit P-16, conducted by the Magistrate was meaningless. Moreover, the Executive Magistrate, who conducted identification parade was not produced in evidence. There was no occasion for the accused-appellants to cross- examine the Executive Magistrate to elicit information whether requisite number of persons with similar height and physiognomy were mixed at the time of test identification parade. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Manmohan Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1742/2017 decided on 18.11.2014). It is argued that test identification parade in the present case is not a substantive piece of evidence. Test identification parade in terms of Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act is held for the purposes of testing the veracity of the witness in regard to his capability of identifying persons who were unknown to him. Test identification parade therefore cannot be relied to convict the appellants.
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, learned counsel argued that the informant in the written report mentioned that apart from him, Durgaram had also seen the accused quarreling with the deceased at Kuchaman Bus Stand, Losal. However, Durgaram has been produced as P.W.7, neither any test identification parade was go conducted from Durgaram, nor he identified the accused in the dock. On the contrary, he rather in the cross-examination stated that he could not say who were those 3-4 persons going in Bolero vehicle. It is argued that Mohd. Aslam (P.W.25) constable, who was member of the patrolling party which intercepted looted jeep, has stated that the complainant also came to Police Station Ratangarh along with S.H.O., Police Station Losal. It is argued (8 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] that recovery of shoe ('juti') at the instance of accused Prakash and Jagdish vide memo Exhibit P-18 is inconsequential because this recovery has been made from the open place and no witness has been produced to prove that the shoe ('juti') belonged to the deceased. The investigating officer admitted in cross examination that shoe ('juti') of the deceased was not got identified from any one. It is argued that recovery of dead body has wrongly been shown at the instance of the accused-appellant Prakash pursuant to information purported to have been given by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exhibit P-38 and also by Jagdish vide Exhibit P-39. Recovery of dead body has been shown from the well of Rajpura at 5.30 P.M. on 06.03.2009 whereas the prosecution witnesses have admitted that several persons had assembled near the well at about 2.00 to 3.00 P.M. i.e. much before the recovery was made. Reference is made to statement of Kripal Singh (P.W.1); Bhinwa Ram (P.W.2), who in cross examination stated that when he reached the well, police was taking dead body out and there was huge crowd of people. Shiv Bhagwan (P.W.3) informant has stated that 15-20 people had assembled near the well at Rajpura around 3.00 P.M. on 06.03.2009.
It is argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the vehicle which was intercepted by the police patrolling party of Ratangarh was in fact same vehicle which those 3-4 persons had hired from the deceased. Number of the alleged vehicle was mentioned in the written report only because that number came to be divulged upon the informant from Police Station Ratangarh itself, otherwise, there is no proof on record (9 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] that the deceased had purchased this vehicle or that it was the same vehicle which the accused had hired from the deceased. Seizure memo of Registration Certificate (Exhibit P-35) mentions that the vehicle was registered in the name of one Jagannath Prasad and that Jagannath Prasad had given power of attorney for transferring the vehicle in favor of one Lalaram son of Bholaram. This does not however prove that the vehicle was ever sold to the deceased Ram Chandra. It is argued that Priyanka Yadav, (P.W.27), Incharge of the Mobile Forensic Unit, Sikar has stated that she did not collect samples of blood from the place of occurrence or from the dead body or even from the Bolero Vehicle. She merely advised the investigating officer to do so. Investigating officer even though collected as many as 12 samples of the blood, but the FSL report (Exhibit P-48) does not indicate whether blood of human origin was found on those samples or whether blood group on any of the samples could be ascertained. In these circumstances, the blood found either on the clothes of the deceased or the vehicle does not connect the accused with the crime. It is therefore prayed that appeal filed by the accused- appellants Prakash and Jagdish may be allowed and they may be acquitted of the charges framed against them.
Mr. Mahendra Meena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Jagdish largely adopted arguments advanced by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, learned counsel. Additionally, he has argued that accused were not kept 'baparda', which would be evident from the recovery memo of the dead body (Exhibit P-3). Dead body was recovered from the well near village Rajpura. Many of the prosecution witnesses stated that large (10 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] number of people had already assembled there. However, there is no mention in the recovery memo of the dead body of the deceased that accused were kept baparda. Even in the inquest report (Exhibit P-4) no such mention was made. Referring to statement of Investigating Officer, Gopal Singh (P.W.26), learned counsel argued that he admitted that there was no mention of factum of accused being kept 'baparda' in Exhibit P-3 or Exhibit P-
4. Learned counsel submitted that this witness has also admitted that he could not collect any documentary evidence to show that Lalaram or Jagannath ever sold the Bolero vehicle to Ram Chandra. However, subsequently when the vehicle was seized, application for release of the vehicle was filed by Lalaram and Jagannath both, but it was eventually released in favour of Jagannath as the registration of the vehicle was in his name. It is argued that recovery of blood stained pants allegedly of Jagdish at his instance has been made from open place and the same cannot be relied to convict him.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh also adopted arguments advanced by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, learned counsel and submitted that Shiv Bhagwan, who appeared as P.W.1 in that case, has admitted that the test identification parade was conducted by Sub Divisional Magistrate in the presence of police, therefore, entire proceedings of test identification parade were vitiated. In fact, this witness in cross examination has stated that vehicle was hired by the accused from Kuchaman City, thus, contradicting his own earlier version wherein he stated that it was hired from Losal. The accused admitted that (11 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] they were not kept 'baparda' at any stage inasmuch as there is no sufficient evidence on record to show that when dead body was recovered and inquest report was prepared, they were kept 'baparda'. There is no mention of this fact either in the memo of recovery of dead body or in the inquest report. It is argued that recovery of key with iron rod at the instance of the accused- appellant vide memo Exhibit P-26 from chabutara of the well as late as on 15.05.2010, i.e. more than one year and two months after the date of incident, is highly unreliable. It cannot be accepted that key would be still lying at the chabutara after lapse of such huge period. Erroneous finding has been recorded by the trial court that injury no. 1 on the head of the deceased was caused by this key whereas key was not shown to Dr. Ratan Singh Ola (P.W.11), who conduct post mortem of the deceased. Recovery memo of blood stained shirt of the accused Babloo cannot be read in evidence as such recovery has not been made at his instance and it was made rather at the instance of co-accused Jagdish and statement of Jagdish even if given to the police to the effect that blood stained shirt was of Babloo cannot be held admissible in evidence.
Mr. R. S. Raghav, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeals and submitted that learned trial court was perfectly justified in convicting the accused-appellants for the alleged offences. The evidence that the accused-appellants were lastly seen in the company of the deceased when they hired Bolero Vehicle from taxi stand at Losal, has been categorically proved by the informant, Shiv Bhagwan, who has been subjected to intensive cross-examination and stood the scrutiny. There is no strength in (12 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] the argument that the prosecution has not proved that the vehicle which was intercepted by the police patrolling party near Ratangarh was the same vehicle which was hired by the accused- appellants on the previous day. In fact, the vehicle number was mentioned in the written report itself, which was submitted at 8.15 A.M. on the very next day and till that time, the informant and the members of the family of the deceased Ram Chandra were not aware that Ram Chandra had died. This is why there is no allegation in the written report / FIR that the accused had committed murder of Ram Chandra. All that was alleged therein was that it was apprehended that the accused might have looted vehicle and thrown Ram Chandra en-route somewhere after subjecting him to beating.
It is argued that the driving licence of Ram Chandra was found in the jeep or in the possession of Jagdish, but the driving licence was recovered by the police at Ratangarh, which goes to show that the driving licence of deceased was with the accused and it connected the accused with the crime. Blood stained shoe ('juti') of the deceased was recovered at the instance of accused-appellants Prakash and Jagdish. Blood stained pants of Jagdish was recovered vide Exhibit P-24 at his instance and blood stained shirt of accused-appellant Babloo was also recovered at the instance of Jagdish vide Exhibit P-23. There were blood stains found in the Bolero Vehicle. In the test identification parade, accused-appellant Prakash, Jagdish and Om Prakash were identified vide memo Exhibit P-14, 15 and 16 by Shiv Bhagwan. Even though in the trial of Jagdish and Prakash, Executive Magistrate was not produced to prove test identification parade (13 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] but the said fact should be taken to have been proved by statement of informant Shiv Bhagwan, who has clearly admitted that he correctly identified the accused in the test identification parade. The same fact should also be taken to have been proved by statement of investigating officer, Gopal Singh (P.W.26), who has also supported the same.
Learned Public Prosecutor referred to statements of Shiv Bhagwan (P.W.5), Mani Ram (P.W.6), Rekha Ram (P.W.14), Surja Ram (P.W.15), Vinod Kumar (P.W.22), Chandra Prakash Pareek (P.W.24), Mohd. Aslam (P.W.25), who were all members of police patrolling party at Ratangarh as to the circumstances in which looted Bolero Jeep was intercepted and the accused were chased. It is argued that charges against the accused-appellants are proved by circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstances against them is complete so as to rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with their innocence. It is, therefore, prayed that present appeals be dismissed.
We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record.
First and foremost evidence against the accused is that they were lastly seen in the company of the deceased, which is proved by the informant, Shiv Bhagwan (P.W.10), who stated that the accused came at taxi stand Losal to hire Bolero Vehicle of Ram Chandra at about 8.30 P.M. on 05.03.2009. The said witness also appeared in test identification parade proceedings, in which he correctly identified Prakash, Jagdish and Om Prakash which is proved vide memos Exhibits P-14, Exhibit P-15 and Exhibit P-16 respectively. Even though the Executive Magistrate, who (14 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] conducted test identification proceedings was not produced in the first trial, but in the trial of accused-appellant Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh, the Executive Magistrate, Gaurav Chaturvedi was produced as P.W.22. In that case also, informant Shiv Bhagwan has appeared as P.W.1 and stated that he identified the accused in the presence of the Magistrate in the jail. He has categorically stated that on the first occasion, he saw the accused when they came to the taxi stand at Losal to hire Bolero Vehicle of the deceased and on second occasion, he saw the accused in the test identification parade conducted in jail. He denied the suggestion that he saw the accused in between anywhere, in fact, they were kept 'baparda'. In trial of accused Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh, Gaurav Chaturvedi (P.W.22), SDM, Sikar appeared and proved test identification parade. He stated that seven other persons of similar height and physiognomy were mixed up with the accused and accused Bablu was identified.
Argument that the fact that vehicle belonged to the deceased or it was the same vehicle which the accused hired on the previous night has not been proved, cannot be taken to have been proved in the absence of Registration Certificate or Agreement to Sell / Power of Attorney executed in favour of the deceased, is noted to be rejected. Such information was given by Chandra Prakash Pareek, S.H.O., Police Station Ratangarh (P.W.24) to S.H.O., Police Station Losal at 9.00 P.M. whereas written report had already been submitted by Shiv Bhagwan to S.H.O., Police Station Losal at 8.15 P.M. even before receipt of said information. In this written report on the basis of which FIR was registered, Shiv Bhagwan mentioned the factum of last seen as (15 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] also the number of Bolero Jeep being RJ 29UA 261. Allegation in the FIR was made that the informant apprehended that accused might have looted the vehicle and thrown Ram Chandra somewhere on the way after beating him. Shiv Bhagwan in his statement has stated that Ram Chandra had purchased Bolero Vehicle only 5-7 days ago. Durgaram informed him that he read the news about loot of Bolero vehicle in the newspaper on 06.03.2009. He did not go to Police Station Ratangarh. The vehicle, which was eventually seized by Ratangarh police, had the same registration number which was mentioned in the written report by Shiv Bhagwan, informant.
Rekha Ram (P.W.14), Head Constable was the in-charge of police patrolling party, who intercepted Bolero Vehicle at Ratangarh. He stated that when they reached outer railway crossing of Ratangarh while patrolling the area, he noticed a Bolero vehicle bearing no. RJ 29 UA 0261. The driver was driving that vehicle in rash and negligent manner. When indication was given to him to stop the vehicle, he rather increased the speed of the vehicle and went towards Fatehpur. He by wireless message sent information to S.H.O., Ratangarh and followed that vehicle. S.H.O., in another vehicle came from the opposite direction. Bolero vehicle came in between two vehicles and therefore was stopped. Four persons were sitting therein. Two persons ran away from the vehicle and two persons kept sitting in the vehicle. One of two persons, who ran away, was caught and another went absconding. Name of the person who went absconding was Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh. When the search was conducted, driving licence of Ram Chandra was found in the pocket of the (16 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] pants of Prakash. Similar statements have been given by Shiv Bhagwan (P.W.5), Mani Ram (P.W.6); Surja Ram (P.W.15); Vinod Kumar (P.W.22); Mangal Singh (P.W.23); Chandra Prakash (P.W.24); and Mohd. Aslam (P.W.25), all members of the police patrolling party. Though there is some discrepancy as to where from licence of Ram Chandra was recovered, but this discrepancy stands explained from the fact that Investigating Officer of the Police Station Losal made a common seizure memo of Bolero Vehicle with key, one mobile handset of Nokia make, another mobile handset of Vodafone; Rs. 110/- and driving licence (Exhibit P-36). This was because he took possession of all these articles from Police Station Ratangarh where they were originally seized. This common seizure memo was prepared at 04.15 P.M. on 10.03.2009. All the members of the police patrolling party have stated that driving licence was recovered from the possession of Prakash when he was arrested after intercepting the jeep. Even though it has been stated by so many witnesses that driving licence was recovered from the possession of Prakash but it is not proved whether any seizure memo thereof was prepared at Ratangarh. A country made 12 bore katta was recovered at the instance of Om Prakash.
FSL Report (Exhibit P-48) proves that human blood was found not only on Bolero Vehicle but also on the pants of Babloo; shoe ('juti') of the deceased; pants, shirt, vest and underwear of the deceased, rubber mat, from seat of car. Merely because the blood group could not be ascertained does not mean that this evidence would have no value. The accused were originally arrested at Ratangarh. One of the accused Om Prakash was (17 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] carrying country made katta, which was recovered vide Exhibit P-
26. FIR for offence under 3/25 of the Arms Act was registered against him wherein he was arrested and his arrest in the present case was procured vide Exhibit P-17 on 10.03.2009. Otherwise Prakash was arrested vide memo Exhibit P-19 and accused Jagdish was arrested vide memo Exhibit P-20 at 12.15 P.M. on 06.03.2009. In both the arrest memos, it was clearly mentioned that accused were kept muffled face (baparda). S.H.O. Losal arrived at Police Station Ratangarh. Though he was accompanied by other persons but there is no evidence to the effect that the complainant and other residents of Losal accompanied him and thereafter the accused remained with covered face, but before that there was no possibility that they had been seen by any one. It is common practice that registration in the name of owner of the vehicle, which is plied for carrying passengers, is not changed immediately and sometimes the same is sold on the basis of power of attorney or affidavit and registration certificate of the vehicle is transferred in the name of new purchaser at later point of time when full payment is made. The fact that Registration Certificate of Bolero Vehicle was not in the name of the deceased would not cause any damage to the prosecution case because number of the vehicle was mentioned in the FIR itself and number of the vehicle which was seized by the police patrolling party at Ratangarh was also the same. Dead body of the deceased Ram Chandra was recovered only after the accused were arrested and accused Prakash gave information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act at 1.00 P.M. on 06.03.2009 whereas information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was given by accused (18 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] Jagdish at 2.15 P.M. on 06.03.2009 at Ratangarh. Therefrom the police started and brought the accused to well at Rajpura near Losal and dead body was eventually recovered vide memo Exhibit P-3 at 5.30 P.M. on 06.03.2009. Even if some of the witnesses have stated that several persons assembled near the well at about 3.00 P.M., that would not be a reason to discard such an important piece of evidence against the accused. Since it is born out from the record that the police party at Ratangarh had telephonically informed the police at Losal and after making necessary arrangements, police party of Losal arrived at Rajpura. Assemblage of few persons near the well was only natural and the defence has not been able to prove by evidence that dead body was discovered at 1.00 P.M. It cannot be a case of mere coincidence that the vehicle with same number was intercepted by the police of Ratangarh. The Bolero Vehicle was found with multiple blood stains on its different body parts. Vehicle Examination Report (Exhibit P-50) which has been proved by Priyanka Yadav (P.W.27), in-charge of Mobile Forensic Unit, Sikar, proved that on chemical examination of the vehicle blood was detected on (1) Inner side part of the middle left and rear left wind screen; (2) Rubber lining of the middle left door; (3) Rear upper portion of the polythene seat covers of the driver seat (4) Rear upper portion of the front left seat and (5) Rubber mat lying under the middle seat. FSL Report (Exhibit P-48) has also proved presence of blood on the plastic seat cover of Bolero car, rubber mat, seat of Bolero car and also from one another place of Bolero car. Post mortem report of the deceased Ram Chandra (Exhibit P-5) has been proved by Dr. Ratan (19 of 19) [CRLA-1284/2017] Singh (P.W.8), who has also appeared as P.W.11 in the trial of accused-appellant Bablu @ Balveer @ Roop Singh. According to him, the deceased sustained as many as 13 injuries and the cause of death was opined to be coma as a result of head injury and injury to brain tissue being Injury No. 1 and 2, which were found to be dangerous to life and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The manner and number of injuries that were caused to the deceased clearly indicate that he was subjected to severe beating and died due to injuries suffered thereby. Therefore, despite there being certain lacuna in the investigation of the police, approach of the learned trial court in convicting the accused-appellants cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity as the prosecution evidence otherwise available on record proved the guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
In the result, the appeals filed by the accused- appellants fail and are hereby dismissed. Impugned judgments passed by the trial court are affirmed.
Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of other connected appeals.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J
Manoj
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)