Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shiv Dan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 July, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005CRILJ36
JUDGMENT O.P. Bishnoi, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the accused Shiv Dan Ram son of Magna Ram Jat against a judgment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur dated 23-2-1987 whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 420 of the IPC.
2. Sometime during the night intervening 16/17-4-1982, Harka Ram son of Tulchha Ram Jat resident of Village 'Senani' District Nagaur committed suicide by hanging in his house situate in the said village. He was searched on 17-4-1982 for sometime and ultimately his body was found hanging from a discarded house. His brother P.W. 13 Mangla went to the police station, Bhawanda and lodged a written report Ex.P/12. According to the report, the deceased who was eldest brother had gone from the village to Nagaur in a tractor to sell the agricultural produce "Tara Meera". He returned on 16-4-1982 and disclosed that the appellant Shiv Dan Ram was with him and at the Municipal Check post, Shiv Dan Ram disclosed that the produce belonged to him and consequently, the same was entered in his name. Further it was stated that after the produce was sold at Nagaur, the deceased received Rs. 3500/- as its price and went to village "Ramsiya" at the house of Baldev Ram Jat. During night, the appellant came in a jeep along with the commission agent through which the produce had been sold and asserted that since the slip issued at the Municipal Check-post was in his name, how could the deceased receive Rs. 3500/- as its price and consequently, the money was taken from the deceased by the appellant. The deceased consulted many people in the village and in the evening, went to sleep and never returned alive. A case under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. was registered and since his brothers P.W. 12 Bhikha Ram and P.W. 13 Mangla Ram expressed that there was no foul play, the case was closed and final report Ex. P/16 was filed.
3. According to the prosecution story, some six months after the death of Harka Ram, another report Ex.P/1 through post was received at the police station. This report was sent by P.W. 1 Chandera Ram, a brother of the deceased, who was an Army Personnel and according to it, the crop belonged to the deceased and was sold for Rs. 3180/- and the payment was made to the deceased . Subsequently, the appellant Shiv Dan Ram along with co-accused Dhanha Ram and the concerned Commission Agent intercepted the deceased and the said money was forcibly taken from the deceased by the three persons in the village Ramsiya. According to the report, the deceased felt extremely ashamed and humiliated and consequently hanged himself. A copy of the report was endorsed to the Local MLA a Minister of the State Government, to the Superintendent of the Police, Nagaur and to Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Nagaur. On this report, a case under Sections 392, 420 and 306 of the IPC was registered at the police station, Bhawanda and ultimately the appellant and the said Dhanna Ram both were challaned. Both of them pleaded not guilty to the charges. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses. D.W. 1 Bhagirath (son of the appellant) and DW 2 Ramdeo (brother of the appellant) were examined in defence. They deposed to the effect that the appellant was arrested from the house and the S.H.O. demanded Rs. 3124/- and threatened that if the money was not paid, the appellant shall be subjected to IIIrd Degree Methods. Consequently, Bhagirath borrowed Rs. 1000/- and Ramdeo arranged Rs. 2124/- and this money was duly recovered as subject matter of the case. Thereafter, the learned trial Court heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 23-2-1987. The learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused Dhanna Ram of all the three charges. The Court further found that no offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC was made out and consequently the appellant was acquitted of the said charge. However, the appellant was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 420 of the IPC. On each count, Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and a line of Rs. 500/- has been awarded. On account of non-payment of fine, additional R.I. for two months on each count has been ordered.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and I find that the appeal deserves to be allowed.
5. So far as the finding of guilt for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned, I find that the conclusions of the learned trial Court are not at all sustainable. Even if it is believed that the whole story is true, it cannot be said that the appellant was guilty of abetting the suicide. It is not expected that on account of such a situation, a normal person would commit suicide. The people are cheated daily but they do not commit suicide. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that from the deposition of P.W. 9 Baldeo Ram and P.W. 10 Hari Ram, it is suggested that when the deceased told the accused persons that on account of the situation, in which, he has landed he will have to die. The accused-persons allegedly replied that it does not matter to them. It is highly doubtful that the dialogue like this took place because there is no such mention of the same in the FIR which was lodged with considerable delay. Moreover, during heated arguments, even if one side says so, it does not mean that it can amount to abetment of suicide. Such words are usually used during a quarrel in the heat of moment and normal person is not expected to commit suicide. In the case of Swamy Prahlad Dass v. State of M.P., 1999 Crl LR (SC) 141, the facts were similar and the order of cognizance was passed by the Court against the accused. The matter ultimately went to the Supreme Court and the order of cognizance was quashed.
6. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC is concerned, similarly, I find that the charge cannot be brought home against the appellant. P.W. 1 Chandera Ram has no personal knowledge and the FIR Ex.P/1 sent by him six months after the incident is based on hearsay.
7. P.W. 2 Bhartish Chandra Joshi was the "Assistant Nakedar" at the Municipal Check post and was examined to prove that initially, the slip was prepared in the name of the appellant Shiv Dan Ram but the dispute was raised then and there by another person about the ownership of the material in question. However, this witness denied in the Court that any such dispute was raised at the Municipal Chek post.
8. P.W. 6 Tara Chand is an employee of "Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti" and he was examined to prove that the produce belonged to the deceased. However, he has specifically stated that as per the register of the 'Krishi Upaj Mandi', the agricultural produce was entered in the name of the appellant Shiv Dan Ram. This witness is not a hostile witness and he has not supported the prosecution case in this respect.
9. P.W. 7 Bhikam Chand is the "Commission Agent" at whose shop, the crop was auctioned. In a detailed statement, he has stated that the produce was brought in a tractor and the appellant Shiv Dan Ram told him that he has brought the "Tara Meera" and the same may be strained. After this direction, the appellant along with one more went away for a cup of tea and after the produce was made ready for auction, the appellant returned and instructed Bhikam Chand to enter the produce in his name and left for shopping. A slip was issued by him to the appellant. In the evening, according to the witness, the produce was put to auction in the absence of Shiv Dan Ram and the deceased Harka Ram received Rs. 3124.80 from him representing that the produce actually belonged to him. Harka Ram left with the money. Shiv Dan Ram returned and saw that the produce has been sold and demanded the money. When Bhikam Chand told him that the money has been taken away by the deceased, the appellant agitated and pressed for payment. Bhikam Chand requisitioned the good offices, to P.W.24 Om Prakash and they searched and located the deceased in village Ramsiya. According the witness, they persuaded the deceased to return the money and the money was returned. The witness has stated that the money was returned by Harka Ram to him and thereafter he delivered the same to the appellant.
10. Similarly, P.W. 24 Om Prakash has also not supported the prosecution version and has deposed that he had gone to village Ramsiya with P.W. 7 Bhikam Chand and the deceased returned the money without any objection. According to the witness, thereafter, they returned to Nagaur and, therefore, the money was restored to the appellant by Bhikam Chand.
11. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that P.W. 5 Siya Ram and P.W. 4 Mehra Ram have both corroborated the prosecution version. I find that the deposition of these two witnesses is of no consequence to the prosecution. P.W. 4 Mehrai Ram has given a story to the effect that his own produce was loaded in the same tractor and was taken to the market and was sold but he received the price of his produce though at the Municipal Check post, the appellant has succeeded in getting the slip in his name in respect of the produce. The presence of Mehra Ram is highly doubtful and he is in the category of a chance witness. There is no mention in the FIR Ex. P/1 that he had gone with his agricultural produce in the same tractor. P.W. 5 Siya Ram has been declared hostile by the prosecution. His version is to the effect that in the evening, and during the night, he was at the Railway Station Nagaur and the appellant had returned with the money in question at 11.00 pm. at Railway Station. The prosecution story, according to Baldeo Ram (P.W. 9) who was brother-in-law of the deceased is to the effect that at 11 pm. in the night, the appellant and his colleagues came searching for the deceased in his house situate in village Ramsiya. In this way, the deposition of Siya Ram to the effect that the appellant along with money was at the Railway Station Nagaur at 11 pm. is not acceptable. :
12. The most important witness in this case is Duka Ram the driver of the tractor, in which, the produce was transported from village Senani to Nagaur. He has been examined as P.W.20. He has stated that he was the driver of the tractor and at the Municipal Out post, the deceased himself had gone to the office and returned with the tax receipt whereas the appellant Shiv Dan Ram continued to sit in the tractor. This falsifies the prosecution story to the effect that the appellant dishonestly got issued the tax receipt in his name. P.W. 20 Duka Ram has clearly stated that the appellant remained in the tractor and it was the deceased who had gone to the people manning the check post and obtained the receipt. It is not in dispute that the receipt was in the name of the appellant. From the deposition of P.W.20 Duka Ram, it is clear that the deceased himself got issued the receipt in the name of the appellant. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that at the time of auction, the appellant was not present and taking advantage of his absence, the deceased dishonestly persuaded the Commission Agent to deliver him the money and then he quickly disappeared. It is pointed out that the deceased did not returned to his own house and went to another village Ramsiya, which itself is sufficient to suggest that it was the appellant who was deceived and cheated the deceased. Be that as it may, from the discussion made above, it is more than clear that no case of cheating by the appellant against the deceased is made out.
13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside so far as it goes against the appellant. The appellant is acquitted of both the charges. He is on bail and his bail bonds are hereby cancelled. Rs. 3124/- which were recovered during the course of investigation shall be returned to DW 1 Bhagirath and D.W. 2 Ramdeo.