Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 266 (RAJ)

Sohanlal v. State of Rajasthan

2007-02-06

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, N.N.MATHUR

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.7.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bhilwara convicting the appellant Sohanlal of offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him with imprisonment for life. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that PW-9 Balu lodged first information report at Police Station, Bhilwara on 28.12.1998 stating inter alia, that in the evening at about 6.30 P.M. he returned from his field alongwith his wife Mst. Chandi. He found the house open, however, the room of his mother Mst. Kamla was locked. As she was missing he made enquiries from the neighbours. He was told by PW-6 Narayan and PW-3 Bholu that the dead body of his mother was lying inside the room. He also stated that when he left for the field his mother was wearing ornaments which including ramnavami, 2 madaliya and nose-ring and she was preparing food. On this information, the police registered a case under Section 302, I.P.C. and proceeded for investigation. 3. During investigation it revealed that Mst. Kamla was not having cordial relations with her daughter-in-law Smt. Chandi. Thus she was killed at the instance of Smt. Chandi in conspiracy with Mohammed Zamil (since acquitted) and appellant Sohanlal. Thus the police filed charge-sheet against Smt. Chandi, Mohammed Zamil and appellant Sohanlal. 4. The appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. The prosecution produced oral and documentary evidence to prove the charges levelled against the appellant and the other two accused persons. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. The trial Court while acquitting Smt. Chandi and Zamil convicted and sentenced the appellant Sohanlal in the manner indicated above. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record carefully. 6. The prosecution has relied upon the following pieces of circumstances to connect the appellant with the alleged crime : (i) recovery of ramnavami from the possession of the appellant, (ii) recovery of key, and (iii) presence of human blood on the shirt of the appellant. 7. As far as the first piece of circumstance is concerned, it is stated that the appellant was arrested on 5.1.1999 vide Ex.P-12. 7. As far as the first piece of circumstance is concerned, it is stated that the appellant was arrested on 5.1.1999 vide Ex.P-12. At the time of the arrest a ramnavami was recovered placed in a plastic bag from his possession. The said ramnavami was seized and packed vide Ex.P-13 in presence of motbir PW-5 Laduram. The ramnavami was identified by the daughter of the deceased, PW-13 Mst. Munna. It is contended by the learned counsel that the ramnavami was not produced in the Court and as such there is no substantive evidence to show that the said ramnavami belonged to deceased Smt. Kamla. 8. We find substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel. The learned Public Prosecutor has failed to satisfy us as to why the said ramnavami was not produced in the Court. As the ramnavami was not produced in the Court it cannot be said to be an incriminating article to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. Thus, we hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish the first circumstance of recovery of ramnavami (ornament) with the alleged crime. 9. As far as the second circumstance is concerned, the prosecution version is that the appellant, after committing the murder of Mst. Kamla, put a lock on the room and carried the key with him. The said key was recovered from the possession of the appellant vide Ex.P-26 in pursuance of the information given by him vide Ex.P-38. 10. It is contended that as per the statements of PW-6 Narayan and PW-3 Bholu the lock was broken and the room was opened wherein the dead body of Mst. Kamla was lying. There is no evidence to connect the recovered key with the lock. The learned Public Prosecutor has failed to satisfy as to how the recovered key has any connection with the lock. On careful consideration of the entire evidence relating to this second piece of circumstance, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the said circumstance by positive evidence. 11. The third circumstance is recovery of shirt of the appellant vide Ex.P-4 from the room where the dead body of Mst. Kamla was found. This circumstance does not connect the appellant with the alleged crime as there is no evidence worth the name to show that the said shirt belonged to the appellant. 11. The third circumstance is recovery of shirt of the appellant vide Ex.P-4 from the room where the dead body of Mst. Kamla was found. This circumstance does not connect the appellant with the alleged crime as there is no evidence worth the name to show that the said shirt belonged to the appellant. Thus it is evidence that the prosecution has failed to establish by a positive and concluding circumstances that it was the appellant and appellant alone who committed the murder of Mst. Kamla. 12. Thus there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. The trial Court has committed error in convicting the appellant of the charge of committing murder of Mst. Kamla.Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bhilwara dated 23.7.2001 is set aside. The appellant Sohanlal is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is in jail, He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal allowed. *******