Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1113 (RAJ)

Ratan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-12

S.P.PATHAK

body2005
Judgment 1. This appeal has been filed by accused Ratan Lal against the Judgment dated 20.09.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge [Fast Track], Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 33/2001. By the aforesaid Judgment , the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-and in default to suffer two years simple imprisonment. 2. Prosecution was initiated by lodging of First Information Report on 06.04.1997 at Police Station Raashmi, District Chittorgarh by Devi Lal which is Exhibit 6 on record. According to the first informant, he was informed by Narain that Ratan has killed his wife and the dead body is lying near the well in his field. This report was lodged at 8.00 p.m. According to the First Information Report the time of occurrence was 6 p.m. on 06.04.1997. After lodging of the First Information Report investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Raashmi who in turn sent to it to the Court of Sessions from where the mater was assigned to the trial Court. 3. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 36 witnesses and Exhibited 30 documents. Accused has been examined under Section 313, CrPC and has produced defence witnesses at the trial. The learned trial Court has considered the case of the prosecution and heard the prosecution. According to the Judgment of the learned trial Court, no eye-witness was coming forth. PW. 6 Narain examined by the prosecution, is said to have informed the first informant about the incident, alleging that he had seen the occurrence taking place. He has not said the fact in his examination before the Court that he was witness of the occurrence. He only stated that at the field of the accused dead body of the deceased was lying. Thus, the case is without any direct evidence. A witness of extra judicial confession was also designated. However, he has also not given out any such version, which can be said to be an extra judicial confession. This left the Court with only circumstantial piece of evidence, which goes in the nature of being last seen and recovery of blood stained axe and clothes and dead body being found on the well of the accused. However, he has also not given out any such version, which can be said to be an extra judicial confession. This left the Court with only circumstantial piece of evidence, which goes in the nature of being last seen and recovery of blood stained axe and clothes and dead body being found on the well of the accused. The trial Court considered the case of the prosecution and convicted the accused appellant after relating the aforesaid circumstances. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the learned trial Court errored in convicting the accused appellant. According to the prosecution witnesses themselves the accused could not be seen at the place of occurrence from 11.00 Oclock to 4 Oclock in the evening. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of the prosecution witness PW. 15 Chhotu Khan, who has stated that on the fateful day when Ratans wife was killed, he had taken the accused to Puanvata at 11.00 A.M. and from there, they have returned back by 4 Oclock in the evening. This witness has not been cross-examined by the prosecution on this point. If the accused was not in the village or during the period 11.00 am to 4.00 p.m. then this time is excluded from being the possible time of occurrence allegedly committed by the accused. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant further urged that the most important witness of the prosecution i.e. PW . 25 Manju, daughter of deceased. She has said that while the accused had gone to the field alongwith her mother, he had instructed her that she should not come to the field. She was a child witness. She has stated that in the evening at about 5.00 p.m., her father came to the home and he was wearing the same set of clothes which he had worn at the time when he went out alongwith her mother in the morning. She had noticed that there were any blood stains on the clothes of her father when he returned in the evening. According to the prosecution the approximate time of occurrence was 5.30 p.m. When he was at home at about 5.00 p.m. and had not worn the clothes which had blood stains, then there was no question of the accused being at the field at 5.30 p.m. to commit the crime. According to the prosecution the approximate time of occurrence was 5.30 p.m. When he was at home at about 5.00 p.m. and had not worn the clothes which had blood stains, then there was no question of the accused being at the field at 5.30 p.m. to commit the crime. Thus, the accused cannot be said to have been last seen with the deceased. His whereabouts has been deposed by the prosecution witnesses themselves. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant further stressed that there remains only one circumstance of the blood stained clothes has been read against the accused. According to the testimony of PW . 27, when he had gone to the field at the time when panchanama etc. were prepared, he had seen that alongwith the dead body, a blood stained axe was also lying there. Accused was brought there and at that time, police had taken the accused and the axe, which was blood stained. On being asked by the Court, the witness said that accused and the axe were taken together by the police. Thus, recovery of axe as has been put forward by the prosecution from a concealed place is not a real recovery because the axe has been recovered at the scene of occurrence. This version of this witness was further supported by PW. 34 Bhura who states that when police came at the scene of occurrence, they had taken the accused and the axe. In the face of the statements of the prosecution witnesses themselves, when they have not been declared hostile, recovery of the axe cannot be read against the accused person because that was recovered from near the corpus and it was not at the instance of the accused. Other witnesses of the prosecution have mostly turned hostile, therefore, there remains noting to sustain the conviction. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor states that it is a brutally committed murder by the accused. He further submits that accused and deceased had strained relations between them. They were even not liking each other. There was misunderstanding between wife and husband and the accused appellant husband had taken another woman in his fold and, therefore, there was every occasion for the husband to get rid o his first wife and commit the murder. He further submits that accused and deceased had strained relations between them. They were even not liking each other. There was misunderstanding between wife and husband and the accused appellant husband had taken another woman in his fold and, therefore, there was every occasion for the husband to get rid o his first wife and commit the murder. The murder has been committed at a place which belonged to the accused and in this background there remains nothing to be suspected and the offence has been brought home. 8. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. The most important question in this case is that there is no eye-witness. The case rests on the circumstantial pieces of evidence, being the axe which according to the prosecution, was recovered from the custody of the accused. The version of the prosecution is not wholly supported by the story as stated by the witnesses. At the scene of occurrence, the axe was lying blood stained as stated by witness. When the accused was taken in custody from the scene of occurrence and escorted to police station the axe was also taken from scene. Two versions of the prosecution stories are coming forward in relation to the recovery of the axe. It is settled law that when there are two versions and one of them is favouring the accused then the version in favour of the accused should be given credence. The witness of the prosecution PW. 34, has not been declared hostile. He has stated that axe was taken from the scene of occurrence. Though the recovery of the axe is a circumstance, but it cannot be pressed into service against the accused person as the same is doubtful. Recovery of clothes is doubtful as it is alleged that the accused was wearing the same set of clothes at 5.00 p.m. These getting stained with blood is not explained. 9. Now we are left with the circumstance of being last seen. Prosecution witness PW. 15 Chhotu Khan had come up to say that he and accused had gone to punavata from 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. In the evening, therefore, the accused was with him. This time was approximately matching the time of the incident, which according to the prosecution is around 30. Thus, the accused was not near the deceased in between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. According to PW. This time was approximately matching the time of the incident, which according to the prosecution is around 30. Thus, the accused was not near the deceased in between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. According to PW. 25 Manju, daughter of the accused, who is the most important witness of the prosecution, submits that accused returned home at about 5.00 p.m. and he was wearing the same set of clothes which he had worn in the morning while going to the field alongwith her mother. She has not stated that there were blood stains on the clothes of the accused. Thus, by that time, he was not near the deceased, PW. 25 Manju is a child witness and she had admitted in her statement that she was tutored. Thus, it is not safe to place credence on her. 10. Now what remains to be seen is whether the accused was around the deceased at the time when the occurrence took place. PW. 25 Manju only speaks of the accused being with the deceased in the morning. For subsequent time, there is no witness who speaks that deceased was with the accused and, therefore, the circumstance of last seen is also of no consequence. 11. Extra judicial confession has not been established at all by the prosecution evidence. Thus, that has not been taken and we also do not give any credence. This only leads to a fact that there was a suspicion and suspicion cannot be taken note of . There is no evidence to bring home to the offence to the accused and, therefore, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. 12. In the result, we are inclined to accept the appeal of the accused. None of the pieces of evidence which has been brought against the accused by the prosecution on record. They are not sufficient enough to establish that the crime has been committed by the accused. His conviction under Section 302, IPC is set aside. Consequently, his sentence is also set aside. He is behind the bars. If not required in any other case he should be released forthwith.