Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1738 (RAJ)

Chhitar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2001-10-31

ANOOP CHAND GOYAL, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant was indicted for having committed murder of Lal Chand in Sessions Case No. 84/94 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jhalawar. The learned trial judge found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him vide judgment dated June 26, 1996 under section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and under section 201 IPC to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case is woven life this. On the basis of oral report of Manni Bai (PW.4) FIR No. 92/94 came to be registered at Police Station Iklera on June 6, 1994 under sections 302 and 201 IPC. In her deposition Manni Bai stated that her son Lal Chand (now deceased) had gone to village and did not return back. Around 9.00 a.m. on June 6, 1994 she was informed that the dead body of her son was found in the well of Raghunath. She suspected Chhitar lal behind the murder of Lal Chand. After registering FIR the investigation commenced, statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.RC. were recorded and the appellant was arrested. Site plan was drawn and weapon of offence was recovered. On conclusion of the investigation charge sheet came to be filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jhalawar. Charges under sections 302 and 201 IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. As many as 21 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case and reliance was placed on 23 documents. In the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.RC. the accused appellant claimed innocence. No evidence however in defence was produced. The learned trial judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated here in above. 3. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Ranglal PW.3 and Shanti Bai (PW.15). Ranglal (PW.3) has been examined as the eye witness of the occurrence. The age of Ranglal at the time of deposition was 15 years. 3. The prosecution case is mainly based on the testimony of Ranglal PW.3 and Shanti Bai (PW.15). Ranglal (PW.3) has been examined as the eye witness of the occurrence. The age of Ranglal at the time of deposition was 15 years. In his deposition Ranglal stated that when he was going along with Lalchand and Chhitar Lal, he suddenly felt urge to urinate, in the meantime, Chhitar inflicted two axe blows on the neck of Lal chand and he fell down and died on the spot, Chhitar then dragged and pushed the dead body in the well by tying a heavy stone with it. In the cross examination Ranglal admitted that he did not see Chhitar inflicting blows on the person of Lalchand. He had only seen Lal Chand lying on the ground. He further stated that he also did not see Chhitar to push the dead body of Lalchand into well and on the pursuation of the villagers he stated so in the examination in chief. He has also admitted that he had already appeared as a witness in two murder case. 4. Shanti Bai (PW.15) is the wife of the accused appellant. In her deposition she stated that her husband told in front of the villagers that he had erased the `evil blot. Explaining the meaning of erasing the evil blot, she deposed that by this she meant the death of Lal Chand. But in her cross examination she changed the version and said that Chhitar did not say so in her presence. 5. Although, Shantibai (PW.15) and Ranglal (PW.3) were examined under sections 161 and 164 Cr.PC. yet they we re not confronted with their earlier statements. 6. The weapon of offence and blood stained clothes of Chhitar accused appellant allegedly recovered at his instance were sent to the FSL for examination but report of the FSL was not placed on record by the prosecution. Even Ram Narain (PW.19) who was motbir of recovery of axe did not support the prosecution version. He categorically stated that no axe was recovered in his presence. This witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution. Similarly Kalu (PW.2) motbir of recovery of blood stained clothes, did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. 7. The learned trial judge found Ranglal and Shanti Bai as reliable witnesses and convicted and sentenced the accused appellant. He categorically stated that no axe was recovered in his presence. This witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution. Similarly Kalu (PW.2) motbir of recovery of blood stained clothes, did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. 7. The learned trial judge found Ranglal and Shanti Bai as reliable witnesses and convicted and sentenced the accused appellant. But we are unable to pursuade ourselves to agree with the findings of the learned trial judge. 8. On analysing the testimony of Ranglai PW.3 we find that although in his cross examination he did not support the prosecution case and changed his versions completely yet he was not declared hostile. Ranglal in his cross examination deposed that neither he had seen the accused appellant inflicting blows on the person of Lalchand nor did he witness Chhitar pushing the dead body of Lalchand into well. This child witness was tutored by the villagers. Manni Bai (PW.4), who is the mother of the deceased in her examination in chief stated that no one other than Chhitar and Ranglal could have committed the murder of Lalchand. 9. The learned trial court has not considered the statement of Manni Bai (PW.4) in a right perspective. If Ranglal was the accomplice then his evidence ought not to have been believed without corroboration from independent testimony. Ranglal also did not explain as to why he accompanied Chhitar and Lal Chand and if he had seen the incident from his own eyes then why did he not inform about it to the police or to anybody in the village? 10. We are unable to place any reliance on the testimony of Ranglal PW.3. He was 15 years of age at the time of deposition before the trial court and in the cross examination he did change his entire testimony. He categorically stated that he did not see the accused appellant inflicting injuries on the persons of Lalnchand. While examining the testimony of Ranglal from the point of view of trustworthiness we find that either he was accomplice of did not see the occurrence at all and no reliance can be placed on the evidence of such a witness. So far as testimony of Shanti Bai (FW.15) is concerned she did not say the. accused appellant in her presence told the villagers that evil blot was erased by him. So far as testimony of Shanti Bai (FW.15) is concerned she did not say the. accused appellant in her presence told the villagers that evil blot was erased by him. The other villagers Chhitar (PW.5) Chattar Lal (PW.7) and Khem Chand (PW.8) examined by the prosecution did not support its case. We are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges under sections 302 and 201 IPC against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of prosecution is too feeble to convict the appellant. Learned Amicus Curiae Shri PR.S. Rajawat in a very short notice did hard work and assisted us. We record our appreciation for his abled assistance. 11. In the result we allow the appeal arid set aside the impugned judgment of the learned trial judge. We acquit the accused appellant Chhittar s/o Kanhaiyalal from the charges under sections 302 and 201 IPC. The accused appellant is in Jail, he shall be set at liberty if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******