Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 1044 (RAJ)

Roopa Ram v. State of Rajasthan

1996-09-12

B.R.ARORA, J.C.VERMA

body1996
Honble ARORA, J.–This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.7.1994 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barmer, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offences u/Ss. 302 & 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment for the offence u/S. 302 IPC; and five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo seven days simple imprisonment for the offence u/S. 201 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (2).Appellant, alongwith Harji Ram, Anna Ram, Paru Ram, Champa Ram, Kesra Ram, Smt. Devu, Chhotha, Sawai, Bharta and Sumra, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer for the offences u/S. 302 IPC for committing the murder of Smt. Tipu (wife of appellant Roopa Ram) and u/S. 201 IPC for causing disappearance of the evidence of the offence, i.e. burrying the deadbody of Smt. Tipu with an intention of screening the offender from the legal punishment. (3). The case of the prosecution which led to the trial and conviction of the accused-appellant is that Smt. Tipu D/o Har Chand was married to accused-appellant Roopa Ram. About ten months before the date of the incident she used to live in her in- laws house. After two months of the marriage Smt. Tipu came to her parental house and she was taken to her in-laws house by appellant Roopa Ram four-five days before the incident. On the day of the incident Poora (PW 17) came to the house of Har Chand and informed him that his daughter Smt. Tipu has been killed by Roopa Ram. At that time Mangla, Kalu, Thakra and Chaina were, also, sitting with Har Chand. He, alongwith these persons, went to Dhorimanna. Mangla, also came there. All of them went to village Akal where Smt. Tipu was married. On enquiry from the villagers of Akal it was revealed that Smt. Tipu, after committing her murder, was burried by eleven persons including Harji etc. Har Chand thereafter went and lodged the report Ex.P/1 at Police Station, Shedwa. (4). The prosecution, in support of its case examined eighteen witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in their defence. On enquiry from the villagers of Akal it was revealed that Smt. Tipu, after committing her murder, was burried by eleven persons including Harji etc. Har Chand thereafter went and lodged the report Ex.P/1 at Police Station, Shedwa. (4). The prosecution, in support of its case examined eighteen witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in their defence. PW 1 Har Chand is the fa- ther, PW 2 Thakra is the uncle, PW 5 Mangla is the brother, PW 6 Kalu is the neighbourer, of the deceased, who, after receiving the information from Pura Ram, alongwith PW 10 Ladu went to village Akal where they were informed by the villagers that Smt. Tipu was murdered by Roopa Ram and was burried by eleven persons. PW 3 Poonma Ram is a Motbir witness to the arrest of the accused; PW 4 Manu Khan is a Motbir witness to the recoveries of the clothes and the Kulhari and the preparation of the site plan while PW 9 Ahmed is a Motbir witness to the arrest of the accused. PW 8 Muib is witness who had been the persons carrying the deadbody of the deceased. PW 11 Dr. Jai Prakash Balmiki was the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy on the corpse of Smt. Tipu. Remaining are the police witnesses. PW 12 Shyam Lal is the Police Constable who was working in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, who after receiving the sealed articles and verifying the same, got the forwarding letter prepared from the Office of the Superintendent of Police and handed-over the sealed articles alongwith the forwarding letter to PW 13 Rawta Ram for taking them for FSL examination at the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. PW 13 Rawta Ram took the sealed articles from PW 18 Raju Singh, H.C., who was the Incharge of the Malkhana of the Police Station and after obtaining the forwarding letter from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, deposited the same for FSL examination at the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. PW 18 Raju Singh was the Head Constable and Incharge of the Malkhana of the Police Station, in whose custody the incriminating articles of the case remained in the same sealed condition in which they were deposited. PW 14 Ram Singh was the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who registered the FIR (Ex.P/1). PW 18 Raju Singh was the Head Constable and Incharge of the Malkhana of the Police Station, in whose custody the incriminating articles of the case remained in the same sealed condition in which they were deposited. PW 14 Ram Singh was the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who registered the FIR (Ex.P/1). PW 15 Ram Singh was the Station House Officer of the Police Station who conducted the investigation and presented the challan. PW 4 Manu Khan, PW 7 Prema, PW 8 Muib, PW 9 Ahmed, PW 16 Sikka Khan and PW 17 Pura have not supported the prosecution case during the trial and they were declared hostile. (5). The Learned trial Court after, considering the evidence produced by the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences u/Ss. 302 & 201 IPC and acquitted all the remaining accused. It is against this judgment dated 18.7.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer that the appellant has preferred this appeal. (6).While convicting the appellant for the offences u/Ss. 302 & 201 IPC the lear- ned trial Court relied upon the three circumstances, namely, (i) the recovery of the deadbody of Smt. Tipu, (ii) recovery of the washed clothes of the deceased; and (iii) the recovery of the Kulhari - the weapon of the offence, on the information and at the instance of the accused. (7). Now, it has to be seen: whether these circumstances relied upon by the learned trial Court are established from the evidence produced on record and whether they are sufficient and complete the chain for the only hypothesis that it was the accused- appellant who was the perpetrator of the crime. (8). The first circumstance relied upon by the learned trial Court is regarding the recovery of the deadbody of Smt. Tipu Ex.P/13 is the information given by the accused to the investigating officer on 31.7.1993 and in pursuance to this information, the recovery of the deadbody was made from the cremation ground on the same day vide Ex.P/14. PW 9 Ahmed and Amu Khan were the two Motbir witnesses to the recovery. Amu Khan has not been produced by the prosecution while Ahmed has not supported the prosecution case regarding recovery of the deadbody on the information or at the instance of the accused-appellant and he was, therefore, declared hostile. His evidence leads as nowhere. (9). PW 9 Ahmed and Amu Khan were the two Motbir witnesses to the recovery. Amu Khan has not been produced by the prosecution while Ahmed has not supported the prosecution case regarding recovery of the deadbody on the information or at the instance of the accused-appellant and he was, therefore, declared hostile. His evidence leads as nowhere. (9). PW 15 Ram Singh - the investigating officer - has stated that the deadbody of Smt. Tipu was recovered vide Ex.P/14 in the presence of Ahmed and Amu Khan. Pw 1 Har Chand has stated that he took the police to the place of the incident and thereafter in the presence of the police the deadbody was taken out from the grave. PW 1 Har Chand - the father of the deceased - has stated as under:- ^^fQj eSa iqfyl dks ekSds ij ys x;kA fQj iqfyl dh ekStwnxh esa Vhiw dh ykk dks tehu esa ls ckgj fudyok;kA** Pw 2 Thakra - the uncle of the deceased-has stated that they were sent on the same night by the police to village Akaliya where the deadbody of Smt. Tipu was burried. The police went at the place of the incident and put out the deadbody. He has stated as under:- ^^fQj ftl fnu fjiksVZ dh mlh fnu jkr dks gekjs dks vkdy xkao ykk tgka nQukbZ ogka mlds ikl Hkst fn;kA** PW 5 Mangla has, also, stated that they went with the police personnel to the cremation ground and took-out the deadbody. His statement reads as under:- ^^nwljs fnu iqfyl vkbZ] iqfyl okyksa ds lkFk ge Hkh kekku x;s] vkSj ykk dks kekku ls ckgj fudkyh] ykk nQukus dk LFkku gjth oxSjk us crk;kA** PW 10 Ladu has stated that the place from where the deadbody was recovered was shown by the villagers. His statement reads as under:- ^^nwljs fnu iqfyl vkbZ] iqfyl okyksa ds lkFk ge Hkh kekku x;s] vkSj ykk dks kekku ls ckgj fudkyh] ykk nQukus dk LFkku gjth oxSjk us crk;kA** PW 10 Ladu has stated that the place from where the deadbody was recovered was shown by the villagers. He has stated as under:- ^^nQukbZ og txg iqfyl dks xkao okyksa us crk;h FkhA fQj Vhiw dh ykk dks tehu esa ls ckgj fudkyh fQj ykk dh MkDVjh djokdj okfil tehu esa xkM+ fn;kA** The evidence of these witnesses clearly shows that the place from where the deadbody of Smt. Tipu was recovered, was known to the villagers and the recovery of the deadbody was not made on the information and at the instance of the accused, rather it was made on the information given by the villagers and Harji or other accused who have been acquitted by the trial Court. This circumstance, therefore, cannot be read against the accused-appellant as the recovery of the deadbody cannot be said to have been made on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant. The learned trial Court was, therefore, not justified in believing this circumstance as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. (10). The next circumstance relied-upon by the learned trial Court is the reco- very of the clothes of the deceased, which, according to the case of the prosecution, were washed by the appellant. Ex.P/19 is the information given by the accused on 2.8.1993 and in pursuance to which the recovery of the clothes of the deceased were made on 3.8.1993 vide Ex.P/20. PW 4 Manu Khan and PW 16 Sikka Khan are the two Motbir witnesses but both these witnesses have been declared hostile as they have not supported the prosecution case. Then remains the evidence of PW 15 Ram Singh. But this recovery of the clothes is not an incriminating circumstance against the appellant as neither the clothes have been produced in the Court nor the FSL report has been produced. The learned trial Court was, therefore, not justified in treating this alleged recovery of the clothes as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. (11). The next circumstance relied upon by the trial Court is the recovery of the Kulhari on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant. The learned trial Court was, therefore, not justified in treating this alleged recovery of the clothes as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. (11). The next circumstance relied upon by the trial Court is the recovery of the Kulhari on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant. The Kulhari is not connected with the crime as neither there is any FSL report nor is there any evidence connecting the Kulhari with the crime. Even the Kulhari has not been produced in evidence. It has, also, not put to the Doctor PW 11. Ex.P/22 is the information given by the accused on 2.8.1993 and Ex.P/23 is the recovery of the Kulhari on the information and at the instance of the accused on 3.8.1993. PW 4 Manu Khan and PW 16 Sikka Khan are the two Motbir witnesses to this recovery but they have been declared hostile and they have not supported the pro- secution case. Then remains the evidence of PW 15 Ram Singh - the investigating officer. The Kulhari was neither sent for FSL examination nor has any report been received from the State forensic Science Laboratory. Even this Kulhari has not been produced in the trial Court nor it has been put in the evidence to the Doctor. In the absence of all these, this recovery of the Kulhari is not of any assistance to the pro- secution and the learned trial Court was, therefore, not justified in believing this recovery of the Kulhari against the appellant. (12). Except these circumstances there is no evidence against the appellant connecting him with the crime. The other type of the evidence which have been produced by the prosecution is the statements of PW 1 Har Chand, PW 2 Thakra, PW 5 Mangla, PW 6 kalu and PW 10 Ladu, who after receiving the information from Pura that Smt. Tipu has been murdered by her husband Roopa Ram, went to village Akhal and came to know that Roopa Ram has committed the murder of his wife Smt. Tipu and after commission of the crime the accused persons have burried her deadbody. None of the witnesses have seen the occurrence. Even Pura Ram, who is said to have given information to Har Chand, has not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of the witnesses, also, does not connect the appellant with the crime. None of the witnesses have seen the occurrence. Even Pura Ram, who is said to have given information to Har Chand, has not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of the witnesses, also, does not connect the appellant with the crime. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, not justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences u/Ss. 302 & 201 IPC. There is neither any direct evidence connecting the appellant with the crime nor is there any other cir- cumstantial evidence which may complete the chain and conclusively establish that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted. (13). In the result, the appeal filed by accused-appellant Roopa Ram is allowed. The judgment dated 18.7.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, convicting and sentencing the appellant, is quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He is in jail. He shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.