Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1506 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2003-11-07

O.P.BISHNOI

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the accused Shanker Lal against a judgment dated 31.7.2002 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Udaipur whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 304 Part I of the IPC. For the offence under Section 341 of the IPC, simple imprisonment for one month has been awarded. Under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, a sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- has been awarded and on account of non-payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for six months has been awarded. Both the principal sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. On 25.1.2002, the Constable Lalchanci of police station, Kurabad District Udaipur filed an FIR (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Kurabad. According to this report, the incident took place on 23.12.2001 wherein Smt. Heera Bai (wife of the appellant) was found unconscious on account of injuries and was admitted to hospital. According to the report, the mother-in-law of the deceased Smt. Heera Bai and elder brother of the appellant gave the information, according to which, the appellant was an alcoholic. On 23.12.2001, on account of some dispute between the husband and wife Smt. Heera Bai decided to leave the house of the appellant and was proceeding to her maternal house. The appellant allegedly stopped her and gave a severe beating, on account of which, she became unconscious. On this report, a case under Sections 341 and 323 of the IPC was registered on 25.1.2002. Smt. Heera Bai died on 26.1.2002. The challan was filed under Sections 341 and 304 of the IPC and the appellant was put to trial by the said court for the said offences. He pleaded not guilty Prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses, None was examined in defence. Arguments were heard and the judgement was delivered on 31.7.2002 as indicated in the beginning. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the s learned Public Prosecutor for the State and I find that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. PW1 Devilal, who allegedly was admitted in the same hospital where the deceased was taken for treatment, has not corroborated the prosecution story and has been declared hostile. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the s learned Public Prosecutor for the State and I find that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. PW1 Devilal, who allegedly was admitted in the same hospital where the deceased was taken for treatment, has not corroborated the prosecution story and has been declared hostile. PW5 Dholi Bai, who happens to be the mother of the accused and mot:her-in-law of the deceased. has denied the prosecution story. She allegedly was an eye-witness in respect of the alleged incident but has turned hostile in respect of seeing any such incident. PW7 Devilal is an uncle of the deceased. He has also not corroborated the prosecution version against the appellant and has denied the prosecution case. He has stated that the deceased was never mistreated by the appellant and has been declared a hostile witness. 5. PW8 Smt. Nozi Bal is not a hostile witness. However, she has not stated that she has any persona; -:knowledge in respect of the alleged incident. She has stated that the maternal side of the deceased informed her that the deceased was belaboured by the appellant. Consequently, the deposition of Smt. Nozi Bai does not lead us to any where. PW10 Sohan Lal and PW11 Narayan are the uncle and brother of the deceased respectively. They have stated that the kids of the deceased informed Meera, and from Meera, they learned that the deceased was beaten by the appellant. In this way both did not have any personal knowledge regarding the incident. PW 19 Meera is none else but a sister of the deceased. She has not supported the prosecution story and has been declared hostile. In cross-examination she has stated that the mother-in-law of the deceased informed her that Hera Bai received beating at the hands of the appellant. As mentioned earlier, Smt. Dholi Bai has turned hostile. In this way the evidence of the prosecution was too unsatisfactory to base any conviction. 6. The learned trial court has mainly come to the conclusion of guilt on as count of the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before the PW4 Pema and PW5 Dholi Bai. As pointed out earlier PW5 Dholi Bai was an eye-witness of the incident and during her deposition she denied that any such incident took place. She has been declared a hostile witness. As pointed out earlier PW5 Dholi Bai was an eye-witness of the incident and during her deposition she denied that any such incident took place. She has been declared a hostile witness. In this way, her deposition is of no consequence. PW4 Pema has of course stated that the alleged extra judicial confession was made to him by the accused. However he has stated that initially he learned from Smt. Nozi that the deceased was threshed by the appellant. As mentioned earlier Smt. Nozi Bai does not say that she had any personal knowledge in the matter. Pema has further stated that he asked from the appellant and the appellant informed him that the deceased was pushed by him and consequently, received injury in the head. Strangely enough, Pema does not say as to how much days after the incident, the alleged extrajudicial confession was made to him. I find that solely on this unsatisfactory statement of Pema a conclusion of guilt cannot be drawn. The witness has not stated as to what were the exact words and what were the circumstances in which the words were uttered by the appellant Prudence and justice require that such evidence alone cannot be made the sole ground of conviction unless there is other evidence to suggest towards the guilt of a person. In the totality of circumstances, I am of the view that in the light of the evidence discussed above, the solitary statement of PW4 Pema in respect of the alleged confession cannot be made the basis of conviction. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. The judgment of the learned trial court is set aside.Appeal Allowed - Conviction Set Aside. *******