Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 412 (RAJ)

Kana Ram S/o Ramdeo v. State of Rajasthan

2001-03-14

V.G.PALSHIKAR

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is filed by the accused-appellants challenging the judgment dated 22.11.1985 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 63/85, convicting the accused-appellants u/s. 201 IPC and sentencing them to suffer R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months R.I. on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and as also canvassed before me. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused-appellants and learned Public Prosecutor, I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record. 3. The prosecution story as it emerges from reappreciation of the evidence on record is that; PW-1 Aijanram resident of Village Dahru lodged a written report on 20.9.1984 at 11.00 a.m. at police station Khinwsar alleging therein that on the preceding night at about 11.00 p.m., he saw the appellants along with Naina Ram, Mohan Ram, Raichandra, Rawat Ram Jat carrying a dead body of Smt. Rampyari towards Surani water tank. They had murdered Rampyari and burnt her deadbody. 4. Arjanram on interrogation by the Police, stated that in the night when he was coming from village Khorwa, at 11.00 a.m., he saw one bullock-cart in which a dead body was kept on a Cot. 5. That appellant-Kanaram was driving the Cart and the rest of the persons were walking with the cart. It was a dark night. As he suspected some foul-play, he went to the cremation ground on the next morning and noticed half burnt body of a female. He also noticed marks of Cart-wheel going from the "Bara" of Raichand. After enquiry, Arjanram came to know that the above named persons had committed the murder of Rampyari and thereafter burnt her dead body. The motive of murder is said to be that on two previous occasions, Ram Pyari was abducted by Jagaram and cases were registered at Police Station Khinwsar. 6. The SHO Police Station Khinwsar registered a case u/ss. 302, 201, 147, 148 & 149 IPC. During the course of investigation, the Police inspected the Court-yard of Rachand and collected bloodstains. The Police also collected the bones from the cremation ground. A medical board was constituted to determine the cause of death of Rampyari, but no opinion could be formed about the cause of death. The bones were sent to the Chemical Examiner. 7. During the course of investigation, the Police inspected the Court-yard of Rachand and collected bloodstains. The Police also collected the bones from the cremation ground. A medical board was constituted to determine the cause of death of Rampyari, but no opinion could be formed about the cause of death. The bones were sent to the Chemical Examiner. 7. The police arrested the appellants and after collecting necessary material filed challan u/ss. 302, 201, 460 IPC against. the appellant-Kanaram and u/s. 201 IPC against the appellants-Hukmaram and Ramdeo. The Police found the charges baseless against Nainaram, Dhula Ram and Moan Ram and Raichand. 8. After trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur, by his judgment dated 22.11.1985 acquitted the appellant-Kanaram for offences u/ss. 302 & 460 IPC but convicted all the three appellants for an offence u/s. 201 IPC and sentenced each of them to five year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. 9. Even if the entire evidence as held by the prosecution is accepted, the conviction u/s. 201 IPC is not possible. In view of the fact that no offence whatsoever is held to have been proved by learned trial Judge, he has acquitted the accused for offence u/ss. 302, 201 which is the offence committed to hide the body of the murdered person. Having found that there was no murder, the learned Judge could not have convicted the accused u/s. 201 IPC. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 3435 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such conviction is not permissible in law. 11. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts of the this case, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction is set aside. The accused are already on bail, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******