Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Thanks to an incompetent investigation, equally unfair, that brutal murder of a helpless lady is going unpunished.

2. Appellant Kalu Lal was convicted of an offence under Section 302, IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, vide judgment dated 19-3-1983.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is; that on May 7, 1982, Smt. Raj Kanwar r/o Jawad, left Jawad in company of the accused appellant Kalu Lal by bus. She was seen off by PW 9 Shanker Singh and PW 11 Keshar Singh. Originally Shanker Singh was to proceed with Raj Kanwar to Udaipur but Jawad bus-stand the accused-appellant met Rajkanwar and Shanker Singh and told them that he was going to Udaipur and hence Shanker Singh need not accompany Rajkanwar. Upon this, Shanker Singh did not proceed for Udaipur and got down from the bus. It is alleged that Rajkanwar and the accused-appellant went to Udaipur where a prescription for Rajkanwar was obtained from a hospital on 9-5-1982. It appears that at Udaipur, the accused appellant stayed at Jain Dharamshala, most probably accompanied with Raj Kanwar. Some medicine was also purchased at Udaipur on 8-5-1982, in the name of Rajkanwar from one Vijay Medical Store. The prosecution story, further, is that the accused-appellant, along with Rajkanwar, proceeded to Kesariyaji and they stayed in Dharamshala Incharge where of was one Pradeep Singh, PSI. According to the prosecution story, the accused-appellant and Rajkanwar stayed in Room No. 46 of the Dharamshala, though no entry was got made in their names in the register of the Dharamshala. The prosecution story is that PW 5 Dalla had seen the appellant & the deceased staying in Room No. 46 of this Dharamshala where of this Dalla was the Chokidar. PW 7 Vardhichand happened to stay in Room No. 44 of this Dharamshala from 6-5 82 to 10-5-82. The prosecution story is that on 8-5-82 at about 4.00 P.M. Vardhichand spotted the appellant sitting in the verandah of Room No. 46, while this witness was sitting in the verandah of Room No. 44. According to the prosecution story, the appellant Kalulal went to Vardhichand and introduced himself as Ramchandra Gaur. He enquired about a hospital and a medical shop on the ground that the lady with him " Maji" was having some trouble. Vardhichand gave the address of the hospital and also of the medical shop. Thereafter the accused appellant went away and returned after i 5-20 minutes. Thereafter Vardhichand went away and returned the same day at about 7 or 8 in the evening. Thereafter he did not see the appellant. He saw the door of Room No. 46 locked in the morning of 9th May, 1982. On 10th May, 1982 he went away to the temple at about 7.00 A.M. and returned only at about 2 00 P.M.

4. The case of the prosecution, further, is that in the meanwhile, on 10-5-82. at about 7.30 am. PW 1 Pradeep Singh, along with Chokidar Dalla, went to take a round of Dharamshala When he reached room No. 46, he saw blood coming out of the room. There was thin stream of blood 6-7 feet in length and 2-1/2"-3" in width, flowing in the verandah. He found that the room was locked from outside. This aroused suspicion and he peeped into the room from a slit in the door-panels. He vaguely spotted some figure lying in the room. He, thereupon, enquired from Dalla, upon which Dalla told him that somebody had been staying in the room for two-three days. How ever, Dalla could not satisfy as to who was staying in the room. Upon this, Pradeep Singh checked from the Dharamshala register and found out that some passengers from Indore, had come and stated in Room No. 46 but they had vacated the same on 8th of May, 1982, and thereafter, this room had not been booked in any other name Upon this, he wrote out a report addressed to the Officer Incharge of the temple Shri Jagjeewanlal Bhandari. This report was forwarded to the S.H.O., Police Station, Rishabh Deo. He submitted this report before Shri Mohanlal P.W. 14. Upon this, Mohanlal draw a formal F.I.R. Ex P/12. Mohanlal himself proceeded to this Dharamshala. He got opened the lock of the room. He found that blood was flowing in the verandah from the room and in the room a woman was lying in a dead condition Mohanlal procused the services of a photographer and obtained certain photographs Ex. P/17 to Ex P/23. He found that the lady did not have any ornaments on her body except some plastic bangles. He arrived at a conclusion that somebody had killed the lady with a view to obtain her ornaments and had thereafter locked the room. Mohanlal, thereafter, prepared Panchnama Ex P/4. He also prepared site plan Ex P/3. Thereafter, he got the dead body examined by Dr. B.L. Malvi, PW 10.

23. Even assuming that the aforesaid documents were recovered from the possession of the accused appellant, the recovery does not advance the prosecution story any further. Nobody has been examined from Vijay Medical Store to prove that the accused-appellant, in company of Smt. Rajkanwar, that had come to the Store to purchase the medicine. No body has been examine from Jain Dharamshala Mandi, Udaipur, to show that Kalulal and the deceased had stayed in the Dharamshala. No doctor has been examined to prove the alleged prescription dated 3-5-82 which may go to show that the accused-appellant has accompanied the deceased to the doctor. To our mind, this recovery is a take one and of no consequence at all.

24. Now, we may consider the circumstances that the accused had been seen in Rishabhdeo, along with the deceased and both of them had stayed in Room No. 46. The testimony of Dulla has not been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge and he has found the testimony of this witness highly unreliable.

25. The learned Public Prosecutor has tried to take support from the testimony of PW 5 Dalla and has urged that the testimony of this witness should not have been discarded by the learned Sessions Judge and the testimony would go to show that it was the accused-appellant, along with the deceased, who had come to stay in Room No. 46 of Dharamshala. We have carefully read the testimony of PW 5, Dalla and we find that it does not inspire any confidence at all. This witness, as Chokidar, was Incharge of the various rooms and it was his duty to get the names of the occupants of the various rooms registered in the register of Dharamshala. The name of the accused-appellant, or for that matter the name of the deceased, does not appear to have been entered in the register of the Dharamshala at all. Dalla claims to identify Kalulal as the person who had been seen sitting by him in Dharamshala with the deceased in Room No. 46. It is highly doubtful. If Dalla had seen accused appellant and deceased living in the room of Dharamshala, he would have definitely reported this matter to Pradeep Singh. But it does not appear that he ever reported the matter. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had gone with Vardhichand and Premchand to the police-station and that time the accused appellant was sitting in the Police station. This admission destroys his testimony regarding identification of the accused-appellant in the jail as also in the trial court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge was right in discarding the testimony of this witness regarding identification of the accused-appellant Ex. P. 15 is the identification memo. Even before the Magistrate conducting the identification proceedings this witness admitted that he had seen the accused-appellant in the Police station.