Supreme Court of India
Balu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1995SC1943, 1995CRILJ3225, AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1943, 1995 AIR SCW 3015, 1997 SCC(CRI) 403, (1995) 2 SCJ 278, (1995) 3 SCR 359 (SC), (1995) 2 OCR 468
Author: G.N. Ray
Bench: G.N. Ray
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 1, 1986 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DB Criminal Appeal No. 283/75. The aforesaid appeal arose out of the judgment dated February 21, 1975 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 106/74. The appellant was charged under Section 302, I.P.C., for causing the death of one Rooparam on August 19, 1974.
2. The prosecution case in short is that the deceased Roopram was engaged as a casual labour by the accused for weeding operation. On the noon of August 19, 1974, the accused Balu Ram went to his uncle Haru (P.W.2) and informed him that he had quarrelled with the deceased. On further enquiry by Haru the accused informed him that he had locked the deceased in his Jhumpa and he requested Haru to accompany him to his jhumpa. Haru was not inclined to go alone and he asked the accused to fetch some people from village so that all of them should accompany the accused to the Jhumpa. After about an hour or so Haru (P.W.2) went to Megh Singh (P.W.3) at Megh Singh's field where he was grazing his cattle. Haru mentioned to Megh Singh that Baluram had come to him informed him that he had quarrelled with Roopram and locked him in Jhumpa. Megh Singh was asked by Haru as to what should be done. It is stated that Megh Singh thereafter asked Haru to wait till the village folk would arrive and he also advised Haru to go to Bhatonki-Dhani which was the locality where the deceased and his relation were living and informed the people there about the episode.
3. The prosecution story is that PW 2 Haru went to Bhaton-Ki-Dhani to meet Mangi Lal (P.W.4) uncle of Roopram. As he did not find Mangi Lal there, he asked a boy of four years of age to inform Mangilal that Roopram and Baluram has quarrelled and Balu Ram confined Roopa in Jhumpa. On his return P.W.2 Haru went to Khema (P.W.6) and told him that Baluram and Roopram had quarrelled and he should accompany to the field of Megh Singh (P.W.3). Khemaram (P.W.6) thereafter accompanied P.W. 2 Haru and then all of them went to the field of Megh Singh. From there Haru, Megh Singh and Khemaram went to the Dhani of accused. When they had proceeded to some distance, accused met him and Megh Singh enquired from the accused that why he had not brought the village folk with him to which the accused had replied that nobody from the village was prepared to come. On the way P.W.3 Megh Singh enquired from the accused where Roopa was at which the accused told him that Roopa had been locked in his Jhumpa. When they reached Jhumpa they found the same was locked and when the said witnesses asked the accused to open the lock the accused placed his hands on the lock and told them that he would open the lock when 'Thanedar' would come. Megh Singh called out Roopram from outside the Jhumpa but no response was received. Megh Singh enquired from the accused what the matter was. The accused first kept quiet but later on said that he had given lathi blows to Roopa and Roopa had died. P.W. 3, Megh Singh, told the accused and Hard and also Khema that they would go to the Police Station but on the second thought he asked them that Haru should go to the Police Station. Thereafter, all of them left the Jhumpa.
4. Further case of the prosecution is that in the very evening of that day, Megh Singh went to Mangilal (P.W.4) uncle of deceased Roopa and he told Mangilal that he along with Haru and Khema had gone to the Jhumpa of Baluram where the deceased was locked but there was no response by Roopa from the Jhumpa and Baluram also declined to open the Jhumpa, when he asked him to do so. Megh Singh told Mangilal that Baluram had admitted that he had given lathi blow to Roopa, and Mangi Lal should go to the Police Station or alternatively collect the people. Upon receiving such information from Megh Singh, Mangilal went to Kalyanshing (P.W.5) and asked him to write a report of the incident. Kalyan Singh (P.W.5) declined to do so. Kalyansingh told him that he had earlier declined to write a report at the instance of Balu.
5. On the next day Mangilal went to the Police Station and lodged an oral report with the Police Office (P.W.7) the Station House Officer. Durgaram, Station House Officer, thereafter, recorded the information and wrote out FIR Exhibit 'P2'. He thereafter proceeded to the village and went straight-way to the Jhumpa, whereupon he called Meghsingh, Kalyansingh and Ratna as 'Mukhbirs'. The Station House Officer asked Megh Singh to open the lock at which Megh Singh pulled and opened the lock. On opening the door of the Jhumpa, they saw that the deceased was lying dead on the floor of the Jhumpa near a cot. He was bleeding from his head injury and the blood had splashed on the floor. A towel soaked with blood was lying near the dead body.
6. The accused, however, denied his complicity to the charge of murder. But the learned Sessions Judge convicted him by relying upon the evidence of PWs. 2, 3 & 4 and accepted the proseuction case by holding that the extrajudicial confession of the accused about the commission of the said murder had been established from the deposition of the said witnesses. On an appeal preferred by the accused before the High Court, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The High Court has held that the witnesses had stated that the accused had made confession before them about the murder. It has been held that the said witnesses particularly PW 2 Haru who was the real uncle of the accused, did not falsely implicate the accused. The High Court has held that the witnesses have deposed in a straight-way manner and there was no reason to disbelieve them. The accused thereafter preferred this appeal from jail.
7. Mr. Puri, learned Counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae has submitted that nobody has seen the accused committing the murder and even if it is accepted that the case is required to be proved on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the evidence does not establish the prosecution case. He has submitted that the witnesses before whom alleged confession had been made by the accused have not spoken in the same tune and there are inconsistencies in their deposition. Mr. Puri has submitted that the High Court has placed strong reliance on the deposition of Haru in view of the fact that Haru was the real uncle of the accused. But if reference to the deposition of Haru is made, it will be evident that the accused had not admitted before Haru that he had assaulted the deceased or that the deceased had died because of such assault. The only thing which Haru has stated in his deposition is that the accused had confessed before him there was quarrel between him and the deceased and he had confined the deceased in his Jhumpa. Mr. Puri has submitted that simply because the accused and deceased had quarrelled and the deceased was confined in Jhumpa, such fact by itself does not establish that the accused had murdered the deceased. So far as Megh Singh (P.W.3) is concerned, Mr. Puri has submitted that although Meghsingh has stated in his deposition that Baluram had confessed before him that he had assaulted the deceased with lathis causing injuries and the deceased had died, such confessional statement alleged to have been made in the presence of other does not get corroboration from the deposition of other witnesses. In such circumstancces, very little reliance should be placed on the deposition of Megh Singh. Mr. Puri has also contended that the case of alleged confession by the accused was not specifically put to the accused at the time of examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, the Court should not accept the case of alleged confession and the accused in the absence of reliable evidence deserves to be acquitted. Mr. Puri has also submitted that from the post-mortem report it is evident that the deceased was mercilessly beaten and there were large number of injuries on his person. Such large number of injuries cannot be expected to have been caused single handedly by the accused.
8. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has, however, submitted that there is no material from which any conclusion can be drawn that the witnesses who had stated about the confession made by the accused had any personal interest for the conviction of the accused. On the contrary, Haru being real uncle, will have a natural tendency to protect the accused and not to speak anything against the accused. Shri Gupta has also contended that in the FIR which was lodged by Mangilal (P.W.4) the uncle of deceased even before the Jhumpa was opened and the nature of injuries were noted by anyone, the nature of injuries had been specifically mentioned on the basis of confession made by the accused. Such injuries on the deceased strongly lend support to the prosecution case that the accused had confessed about his complicity in the commission of murder and the manner in which the murder was committed. Mr. Gupta has submitted that P.W. 3 Megh Singh has categorically stated in his deposition that the accused had confessed before him that he had assaulted the deceased with lathi causing bleeding injuries and the deceased had died because of such injuries. In the aforesaid facts, Mr. Gupta submits that the prosecution case was rightly accepted by the Courts below and there is no reason to interfere in the instant appeal. He has submitted that admittedly the accused had confined the deceased in his Jhumpa and only on opening the same in the presence of witnesses and police the deceased was found lying dead with bleeding injuries. There is no evidence or even any suggestion that someone else had opened the lock of Jhumpa and caused the murder of the deceased and thereafter closed the door before the dead body was found in the presence of police.
9. After hearing both the learned counsel and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced in the proceeding, it appears to us that although from the deposition of Haru it does not transpire that he had spoken about the confession of the accused about murdering the deceased but he has specifically stated that the accused had admitted before him that he had a quarrel and he had confined the deceased in his Jhumpa and he would not allow anybody to open the same before the police would be called. The other witness as we have already indicated, has specifically stated about the said confession and there is some force in the submission of Mr. Gupta that in the FIR lodged by the uncle of the deceased the injuries caused by lathis on head and other parts of the body have been specifically mentioned. The nature of injuries stated to have been disclosed in confession stand corroborated from the medical evidence.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not think that the conclusion drawn by the Courts below was unjustified which requires interference by this Court. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.