Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 351 (RAJ)

Raju @ Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-02

KHEM CHAND SHARMA, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2006
Honble K.C. SHARMA, J.–This criminal appeal by accused appellant Raju @ Rajendra sent through Superintendent, Central Jail, Kota arises out of the judgment and order dated 31.5.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Chhabara, by which the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 498A IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on the first count and to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment on the second count. (2). The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (3). The facts leading to the present appeal are that on 27.4.2000 at 11.20 AM some unknown person informed the police at Police Station Atru that dead body of a woman was lying in the house of Raju Mali in village Mundla (Barla) and disconnected the phone. Radha Kishan, ASI of Police Station Atru recorded this information in Rojnamcha and since the information was incomplete, he along with police personnels reached village Mundla and completed entire formalities at the site including preparation of site plan, inquest report and seizure etc. Having reached the police station, he submitted a report to the SHO, upon which the SHO registered a case No. 5/2000 under Sec. 174 Cr.P.C. (4). On the next day i.e. on 28.4.2000 at 10.30 AM complainant Babu Lal submitted a written report at Police Station Atru alleging therein that her sister Gita Bai was married to Rajendra about 10-11 years back in collective marriage ceremony of Mali community. After two years of her marriage, `Gona ceremony also took place and she started going to her inlaws family. It was then alleged that immediately after her `Gona Rajendra started beating her and demanding Rs. 15,000/-. He used to torture her on the pretext that since her father arranged the marriage in a function of the community and therefore he did not give anything against dowry. The complainant further alleged that about 5-6 months earlier, Rajendra had made her to run to Diwali after beating her, but the persons of the community got the matter compromised and sent Gita Bai to her inlaws house along with her husband Rajendra. The complainant further alleged that about 5-6 months earlier, Rajendra had made her to run to Diwali after beating her, but the persons of the community got the matter compromised and sent Gita Bai to her inlaws house along with her husband Rajendra. On 24.4.2000 Gita Bai and Rajendra had gone to Kamkheda and were returning to Diwali in the night of 25.4.2000 at about 8-9 PM. Having reached Barla Road, Rajendra made the Trolly stopped, while Gita Bai was willing to come to village Diwali along with quests and her family members. Rajendra abused her and forcibly got her down from the Trolly. One Surendra accompanied both for few steps to see them off. On way also Rajendra went on quarreling with his wife Gita. Lastly it was alleged that Rajendra took Gita Bai to village Mundla, where he belaboured her and caused her death. (5). On the basis of aforesaid written report, the police registered a case against the accused person for offence under Sections 302 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. In the course of investigation the police got conducted autopsy on the deadbody, prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and arrested the accused. Having completed entire formalities as to the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused person in the court of learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate having found the offence exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, committed the case to the court of Sessions. (6). On the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation and after hearing arguments the learned trial court framed charges under Secs. 498-A and 302 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. (7). In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. After the prosecution evidence was over, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (8). At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court found the accused appellant guilty of the offences charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated herein above. (9). We have heard learned learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and carefully scanned the evidence and material available on record. (10). At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court found the accused appellant guilty of the offences charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated herein above. (9). We have heard learned learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and carefully scanned the evidence and material available on record. (10). Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant has contended that this case solely rests on circumstantial evidence and the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the learned trial court does not lead to the guilt of the accused. Learned counsel contended that there is no direct evidence and therefore, the conviction recorded by the trial court cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. (11). Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment impugned in the appeal and contended that the circumstantial evidence well proved unerringly points to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. (12). We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. AT the very out set, we must observe that it is not only a case of circumstantial evidence but there is direct evidence, which escaped the attention of not only the prosecution but also the attention of the trial court. PW 17 Laxmi Chand, an Advocate by profession is a neighbour of deceased and accused Raju @ Rajendra. According to him, the deceased wife and accused husband used to quarrel with each other. On 25.4.2000 about 9-10 PM when he was sleeping at the roof of his house, he heard the cries of some woman. On coming out he found that some woman was weeping in the house of accused Raju. He then went to the house of Raju, the doors of the house were open and father of Raju was sitting on a cot in the courtyard. The witness saw that Raju and his wife were present in a room, while Rajus wife was standing in corner of that room and was weeping. At that time, Raju had a iron `Kadchu in his hand. He made Raju to understand as to why he was behaving like that. If there is dissension between them, send her to her parents house. When the witness after making the accused understand was returning back, the father of accused asked him to stay more and accordingly he stayed there for some time. He made Raju to understand as to why he was behaving like that. If there is dissension between them, send her to her parents house. When the witness after making the accused understand was returning back, the father of accused asked him to stay more and accordingly he stayed there for some time. In the meantime, the father of the accused requested the witness to stay further, otherwise, Raju would beat his wife again. The witness then again tried to make Raju understand and ultimately he left Rajus house at about 1-12 PM. Lastly, the witness stated that on 27.4.2000 at AM/12 noon, one Ram Prasad of his village informed him that wife of Raju was lying dead in her house. (13). As per the prosecution case, the death of deceased Gita came to the light only on 27.4.2000 and undisputedly she was not seen by any one after 25.4.2000. The prosecution witnesses, namely Suresh Meena, Motya Bai, Mangi Bai and the complainant have stated that on 25.4.2000 at about 8-9 PM the accused forcibly took Geeta to his village while they were returning from Kamkheda and deceased Gita was willing to go to village Diwali alongwith her family members and guests. It is thus clear that having reached his house in the night of 25.4.2000, the accused started beating his wife and that her cries attracted the attention of PW-17 Laxmi Chand at about 9-10 PM while he was sleeping at the roof of his house. Having heard cries of deceased, the witness went to the house of accused and found the accused and deceased both present in a room, where accused was standing there duly armed with iron `Kadchu, while deceased was standing in the corner of room and was weeping. When witness was returning after making the accused to understand, the father of the accused requested him to stay for some time otherwise, the accused would beat his wife again. The evidence of this independent witness leads us to draw a conclusion that after the witness left the house of accused, the accused caused the death of his wife in the night of 25.4.2000. The fact that accused caused the death of deceased in the night of 25.4.2000 stands fortified by the medical evidence. The post-mortem report, Ex.P. 9 clearly mentions the probable time since death; about 48-60 hours. The fact that accused caused the death of deceased in the night of 25.4.2000 stands fortified by the medical evidence. The post-mortem report, Ex.P. 9 clearly mentions the probable time since death; about 48-60 hours. The Jurists conducted autopsy on 28.4.2000 at 9 AM and found that duration of death was about 48-60 hours. PW 7 Dr. Jai Prakash Yadav, PW 23 Dr. Santosh Dadwaria and PW 25 Dr. N.D. Irani, members of the Medical Board have stated about the condition of the dead body. According to them the dead body had putrefied and there were blisters on whole of the body, filled with gas. The post-mortem report Ex.P. 9 also mentions that presence of secondary relaxation with putrefaction with blisters and gasseous bubbles. The eye lids and tongue were protruded out. There was abrasion 2x1/2 cm on right side of neck near carotid area which was ante-mortem in nature. In this view of the matter, if the probable time since death of deceased as has been indicated in the post-mortem report is taken to be correct, then it can well be said that death of deceased was caused in the night intervening 25/26.4.2000, inasmuch as the condition of dead body was self explanatory. It may be reiterated that there is nothing on record to show that after the night of 25.4.2000, the deceased was seen alive. (14). In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. (15). The learned trial court in arriving at a conclusion of guilt has relied upon numerous circumstances, which may be enumerated below : (i) Appellant used to torture and beat his wife deceased Gita for and in connection with demand of dowry. (15). The learned trial court in arriving at a conclusion of guilt has relied upon numerous circumstances, which may be enumerated below : (i) Appellant used to torture and beat his wife deceased Gita for and in connection with demand of dowry. (ii) since appellant used to torture and beat his wife in connection with demand of cash, the deceased stayed at the house of her father at village Diwali and it was only after the appellant submitted a compromise, Ex.P. 13 dated 17.8.99 that he will keep his wife in a better way and that she will not be subjected to beating, the members of her parents family sent her with the appellant. (iii) On 24.4.2000 Gita Bai and Rajendra had gone to Kamkheda and were returning to Diwali in the night of 25.4.2000 at about 8-9 PM. Having reached Barla Road, Rajendra made the Trolly stopped, while Gita Bai was willing to come to village Diwali along with guests and her family members. Rajendra abused her and forcibly got her down for the Trolly and took her to his house at village Maundla, where he belaboured her in the night as has been stated by PW-17 Laxmi Chand. (iv) On 27.4.2000 at 11.00 AM Ram Prasad informed PW-17 Laxmi Chand about the death of Gita Bai w/o appellant Rajendra and at 11.20 AM some unknown person telephonically informed PW-24 Radha Kishan ASI of Police Station, Atru about suspicious and unnatural death of Gita Bai. (v) The deceased was last seen in the company of appellant, and (vi) The appellant in his explanation under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. has not been able to explain as to how his wife was found dead in his room. (16). So far as first circumstance put forth by the prosecution and relied upon by the trial court is that appellant used to torture and beat his wife deceased Gita for and in connection with demand of dowry. In his connection the prosecution has examination PW-2 Natti Bai, PW-2 Babu Lal, PW-3 Rameshwar, PW-18 Motya Bai, PW-26 Mangi Bai and PW-27 Chita Bai. We have critically examined the evidence of these witnesses. In his connection the prosecution has examination PW-2 Natti Bai, PW-2 Babu Lal, PW-3 Rameshwar, PW-18 Motya Bai, PW-26 Mangi Bai and PW-27 Chita Bai. We have critically examined the evidence of these witnesses. All these witnesses belonging to parents side of the deceased have categricially deposed that whenever deceased used to visit her parents house at village Diwali, she used to speak about the beating and torture being done to her at the instance of her husband, on the pretext that since marriage was solemnized in a common function of the community, she brought less dowry and also in connection with demand of money. the statements of these witnesses stand in corroboration with the evidence of PW-4 Lalit Kumar, PW-10 Ram Prakash, PW-17 Laxmi Chand and PW-19 Beru Lal who belong to the village of accused appellant. According to these four witnesses, appellant Raju often used to beat his wife. (17). In sequence is the second circumstance. The prosecution witnesses referred to above have specifically deposed that the deceased on being often harassed and beaten by the appellant in connection with demand of cash, left the house of her husband and stayed with her parents at village Diwali for about 2-3 years. The evidence shows that it was only after the appellant submitted a compromise, Ex.P. 13 dated 17.8.99 that he will keep his wife in a better way and that she will not be subjected to beating in future, the members of her parents family permitted her to go with her husband, the present appellant. (18). On 24.4.2000 Gita Bai and Rajendra along with complainant Babulal, brother of the deceased had gone to village Kamkheda and were returning to Diwali in the night of 25.4.2000 at about 8-9 PM. Having reached Barla Road, Rajendra made the Trolly stopped, while Gita Bai was willing to come to village Diwali along with guests and her family members. Rajendra abused her and, caught her hand and forcibly got her down from the Trolly and took her to his hose at village Mundly. PW-20 Suresh Kumar had accompanied both of them for some distance to see them off. These allegations find mention in the FIR Ex.P. 2 and the witnesses namely PW-2 Babu Lal, PW-18 Motya Bai, PW-20 Suresh Kumar and PW-26 Mangi Bai have corroborated the above allegations contained in the FIR. PW-20 Suresh Kumar had accompanied both of them for some distance to see them off. These allegations find mention in the FIR Ex.P. 2 and the witnesses namely PW-2 Babu Lal, PW-18 Motya Bai, PW-20 Suresh Kumar and PW-26 Mangi Bai have corroborated the above allegations contained in the FIR. PW- 17 Laxmi Chand is an independent witness having no grudge against the accused appellant. He is neighbour of the appellant. According to this witness, on 25.4.2000 at about 10 PM while he was sleeping at the roof of his house, he heard the cries of some woman, whereupon, he went to the house of appellant. The door of the house of appellant were open and appellants father was sitting on a cot in the courtyard. Appellant Raju was present in the room and his wife Gita was standing in the corner of that room and was weeping. At that time the appellant had an iron Kadchu in his hand. When this witness, after making the appellant to understand was returning, the father of the appellant requested him to stay for some time, otherwise Raju will again beat his wife. From the evidence of this witness it is crystal clear that after the appellant brought his wife while she was on way from village Kamkheda to village Diwali, belaboured his wife Gita and her cries attracted the attention of this witness in the night of 25.4.2000 at about 10 PM while he was sleeping at the roof of his house situated near the house of appellant. (19). Now comes the fourth circumstances i.e. the fact as to the death of deceased having come to light. On 27.4.2000 at 11.00 AM Ram Prasad informed PW-17 Laxmi Chand about the death of Gita Bai w/o appellant Rajendra and at 11.20 AM some unknown person telephonically informed PW-24 Radha Kishan ASI of Police Station, Atru about suspicious and unnatural death of Gita Bai. On 27.4.2000 at 11.00 AM Ram Prasad informed PW-17 Laxmi Chand about the death of Gita Bai w/o appellant Rajendra and at 11.20 AM some unknown person telephonically informed PW-24 Radha Kishan ASI of Police Station, Atru about suspicious and unnatural death of Gita Bai. Having received the information, the ASI along with police personnels rushed to the house of accused Rajendra and complete formalities at the site and thereafter having found the death of deceased in suspicious condition, submitted his report before the SHO for initiation of proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. PW-4 Lalit Kumar who resides at a distance of 100 from the house of accused has deposed that in the morning of 27.4.2000, Bhanwar Lal father of appellant come to his house and informed him that Gita Bai W/o Raju has passed away and body has to be cremated. The witness deposed that when he went to the house of accused, he found Gita Bai w/o Raju dead, lying on the cot. When appellant Raju asked the witness to get her cremated, the witness replied that it was a police case and till the police come, there will not no funeral. (20). The fifth important circumstantial evidence against the appellant is that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together. Last seen together in legal parlance ordinarily refers to the last seen together in the street, at a public place or at any place frequented by the public. But here, the last seen together is much more than that. The last seen together here is the room of the house of appellant himself. It has come in the evidence that on 25.4.2000 at about 8-9 PM accused forcibly brought his wife while she was returning from village Khamkheda and was wiling to go along with her family members and guests to village Diwali. After the appellant brought his wife to his wife to his house, he took her to the room and started beating the deceased. As a consequence of beating she raised an alarm which attracted the attention of PW-17 Laxmi Chand, who, as stated above, came to the house of appellant and made the appellant to understand. After the appellant brought his wife to his wife to his house, he took her to the room and started beating the deceased. As a consequence of beating she raised an alarm which attracted the attention of PW-17 Laxmi Chand, who, as stated above, came to the house of appellant and made the appellant to understand. At the request of father of the appellant, the witnesses stayed at the house of appellant for some time and then he returned to his house of appellant for some time and then the returned to his house at about 11 PM. The appellant, according to this witness, had a Kaduchi in his hand. Thereafter the deceased was not seen alive by any person and it was only on 27.4.2000 that the fact of Mst. Gita having died came to the light. Thus the prosecution has been able to prove that deceased was last seen in the company of her husband in a room of the house of her husband in the night of 25.4.2000. (21). The sixth circumstance relied upon by the trial court is that the appellant in his explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not been able to state as to how and in what circumstances the deceased was found dead in his room. It may be stated that the appellant was residing alone in his house. Reference may be made to the statement of PW-28 Radha Kishan Pareek, SHO who has deposed that appellant was residing alone in his house. The site plant Ex.P. 4 also indicates that in between the residences of appellant and his father, there is a common chowk. (22). The conduct of the appellant, points finger towards his guilt. Despite the appellant having knowledge about the death of his wife, did not choose to inform the police about the death of his wife in abnormal and suspicious circumstances and tried to get funeral of the dead body. On the contrary, the appellant tried to conceal the fact of death of wife and ultimately after 2 days when the dead body started putrefied with blisters all over the body, then under these compelling circumstances the appellant asked PW-4 Lalit Kumar for funeral. (23). Now the question which remains to be considered is, who is responsible for the death of deceased. As already noticed, the accused and the deceased were found present in the room of their house. (23). Now the question which remains to be considered is, who is responsible for the death of deceased. As already noticed, the accused and the deceased were found present in the room of their house. There is no evidence of an intruder, nor was the defence to that effect. In such a situation, the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased are shifted to the accused. It is the accused who knows in what manner and in what circumstances the deceased had met her end and as to how the body with abrasion on the neck was found on the cot lying in the room of his house. All the aforesaid circumstances, taken together cummulatively lead and unerringly point only to the guilt of the accused appellant. The trial court, in our view was fully justified in convicting the accused. (24). For the reasons we do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same stands accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to appellant under Section 302 and 498A IPC are confirmed.