Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1266 (RAJ)

Ratan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2010-07-21

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI, PRAKASH TATIA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant Ratan Lal s/o Pyarchand , by caste Gadari, r/o Seturiya, District Bhilwara against the judgment and order dated 27.02.04 passed by learned Addl.District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.60/2003 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 13.07.02, at 07.55 AM Jawaharlal s/o Bhawani Ram r/o Lakhola gave a telephonic information that body of Harlal was lying in his field situated near Gayatri temple , Lakhola. There were injuries on the head of Harlal. On this information ,Mustkeem Khan , Sub- Inspector, Police Station Gangapur reached at the spot where Shanker Lal, brother of the deceased, gave a report alleging interalia that at about 07.30 AM his grand daughter in-law Anita informed him that Harlal was not responding to the calls, on which complainant went to the field and saw that his brother Harlal was lying dead with serious injuries on his head. This report was lodged by Shankerlal Darji. On the basis of this information Ex.P/1, case No.259/02 was registered at Police Station, Gangapur and the investigation commenced. 3. During the course of investigation, accused appellant Ratan Lal was arrested, statement of the witnesses were recorded and at the instance of the information recorded under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, weapon of offence was recovered and after usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the court of Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur, for the commission of offence under section 302 IPC, from where the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara and from there to the court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge ( Fast Track) No.1, Bhilwara for trial. 4. The accused appellant Ratan Lal was charged under sections 302 and 447 IPC for which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses, namely , PW/1. Shanker Lal PW/2 Ratan Lal PW/3 Shanti Lal, PW/4 Kishan Lal , PW/5 Ramkanya , PW/6 Ram Lal, PW/7 Anita , PW/8 Kailash , PW/9 Lehru, PW/10 Naru, PW/11 Bheru Lal , PW/12 Munna Lal Sharma , PW/13 Jagdish Chandra, PW/14 Nirbhay Singh , PW/15 Mustkim Khan, PW/16 Ladu Lal , PW/17 Roopkishore, PW/18 Bheru Lal, PW/19 Bhanwar Singh, PW/20 Dr. Amarchand Mahavar and PW/21 Bhagvati Lal, in support of the case. 6. Amarchand Mahavar and PW/21 Bhagvati Lal, in support of the case. 6. The accused was examined under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the accused appellant did not choose to lead any defence. 7. On the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge proceeded to convict the accused appellant for the commission of the offence charged under section 302 IPC and convicted him for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of the fine . For offence under section 447 IPC the learned trial Judge awarded a sentence of three month's rigorous imprisonment and further ordered that the substantive sentences be run concurrently. 8. The learned trial Judge considered the following circumstances for recording conviction and sentence against the accused appellant. (1) The cause of the death of the deceased was due to head injuries, resulting in fracture of the parietal bone causing haemorrhage and shock, (2) On 13.07. 02, before the examination of the dead body of Harlal, articles 1 to 4, the clothes of the deceased, were seized vide memo Ex.P/4 . (3) On 13.07.02 deceased Harlal's chappal , torch, blood stained pillow , and blood stained tripal were recovered from the place of incident vide memo Ex.P/6. (4) At the instance of the information of the accused, recorded under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, Ex.P/74, blood stained stick (weapon of offence) was recovered. (5) At the instance of the information of the accused appellant under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, blood stained shirt and pants were recovered vide memo Ex.P/ 71. (6) There was a motive on the part of the accused appellant regarding the minor daughter of PW/10 Naru, who was kidnapped by the accused appellant. (7) In the midnight of 12.07.02 and 13.07.02 deceased was sleeping in his field alone and there was an opportunity with the accused to kill him. 9. While considering the cumulative effect of all these circumstances , the learned trial Judge convicted the accused appellant for the commission of offence under section 302 and 447 IPC . 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellant is that the learned trial Judge had not appreciated the prosecution evidence in the light of the facts available on record. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellant is that the learned trial Judge had not appreciated the prosecution evidence in the light of the facts available on record. He further argued that there was no eye witness in this case and the case completely rested on circumstantial evidences. The prosecution had not been able to prove that the links in the chain of events were so probable, so as to be inconsistent with any possibility of innocence of the accused. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellant , many vital links were missing. 11. The next contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellant was that the lathi, (the weapon of offence), was recovered from a Well and as per PW/2, Ratan Lal who took out the lathi from the Well, there was some water in the Well. Moreover, staining on the lathi in the form of a band of 3 to 4 inches width was highly improbable and , therefore , also the recovery of lathi , (the weapon of offence) was not free from doubt. The blood stained clothes of the accused appellant, were not recovered from the conscious possession of the accused. More over the prosecution had failed to prove the motive of the crime on the part of the accused appellant. The motive so alleged by the prosecution was that, about two years back the accused appellant had eloped with the daughter of Naru, and Harlal the deceased was the witness in that criminal case filed against the accused appellant. 12. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently defended the judgment of the learned trial Judge and argued that the circumstantial evidence available against the accused appellant in itself constituted a complete chain of events and the learned trial Judge considered every circumstantial evidence in a careful manner . Therefore, the judgment and the order of sentence recorded by the learned trial judge, did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 13. PW/1 Shankerlal is the elder brother of the deceased, Harlal and he deposed that about six months previous to his statement , at about 6 or 7.00 AM in the morning , his daughter -in-law Anita, informed that Harlal's body was lying in a blood stained position in the field. 13. PW/1 Shankerlal is the elder brother of the deceased, Harlal and he deposed that about six months previous to his statement , at about 6 or 7.00 AM in the morning , his daughter -in-law Anita, informed that Harlal's body was lying in a blood stained position in the field. He, along with Ramlal Chhajer went to Harlal's field and saw that Harlal was dead and blood was oozing from his forehead due to head injuries. The police reached Harlal's field at 08.00 AM after which he reported the matter to the police through report, Ex.P/1. Police prepared the site memo and other memos of recovery of the blood stained clothes of the deceased. 14. PW/2 Ratan Lal deposed that the investigating officer inspected the site of incident and prepared memo Ex.P/2. Further , the investigating officer seized some articles like chappel and torch through Ex.P/6 and he was also witness to memo Ex.P/7 , P/8 and P/9. 15. PW/3 Shantilal did not corroborate the evidence of the prosecution, therefore, he was declared hostile. 16. PW/4 Kishan Lal deposed about the execution of memo Ex.P/3. PW/5 Ramkanya , PW/6 Ram Lal, PW/7 Anita , PW/8 Kailash , and PW/9 Lehru,deposed about the fact that in the morning, Anita saw the dead body of Harlal and informed all these persons. 17. PW/10 Naru is the concerned witness of the prosecution, regarding the motive of the accused appellant to cause the death of the deceased. He deposed that three years previous to his statement, his daughter Sugna had eloped with Ratan Lal, the accused appellant. The fact of this elopement came to the knowledge of Harlal and then he , along with Harlal, went to Bhilwara and from there they brought his daughter back. Harlal told him that Ratanlal threatened him for this act. 18. PW/11 Bheru Lal did not corroborate the evidence of prosecution and therefore, was declared hostile. 19. PW/12 Munna Lal deposed about the conducting of the videography about the recovery of the weapon of offence from the Well. PW/13 Jagdish Chandra also deposed about the photographs Ex.P/10 to Ex.P/36, and the negative Ex.P/37 to 63. 20. 18. PW/11 Bheru Lal did not corroborate the evidence of prosecution and therefore, was declared hostile. 19. PW/12 Munna Lal deposed about the conducting of the videography about the recovery of the weapon of offence from the Well. PW/13 Jagdish Chandra also deposed about the photographs Ex.P/10 to Ex.P/36, and the negative Ex.P/37 to 63. 20. PW/14 Nirbhay Singh is the person who carried the malkhana articles in the sealed condition from police station Gangapur to the S.P.Office, Bhilwara and then after receiving forwarding letter from the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, he carried the articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Udaipur. 21. PW/15 Mustkim Khan, and PW/17 Roopkishore, are the investigating officers , out of which PW/15 Mustkim Khan received the telephonic information on 13.07.02 at 07.55 AM regarding the dead body of Harlal lying in his field, on which he subscribed that information in Rojnamcha Ex.P/69. 22. PW/17 Roopkishore deposed about the registration of case No.259/02 and also deposed about the fact of arrest of Ratanlal vide Ex.P/73. Further both the witnesses deposed about the subsequent investigations. 23. PW/18 Bhanwar Singh and PW/19 Bherulal are police officers who conducted the investigation during the course of investigation. 24. PW/16 Lalulal did not corroborate the evidence of the prosecution, therefore, he was declared hostile. 25. Further both the witnesses deposed about the subsequent investigations. 23. PW/18 Bhanwar Singh and PW/19 Bherulal are police officers who conducted the investigation during the course of investigation. 24. PW/16 Lalulal did not corroborate the evidence of the prosecution, therefore, he was declared hostile. 25. PW/20 Dr.Amarchand is the doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Harlal and found the following injuries on the person of Harlal : " ckgkz ijh{k.k & ua0 1 dqpyk gqvk ?kko [kwu tek gqvk 3 lseh0 x 1 lseh0 gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rdA ftl ij QszUVy cksu dk QsDpj FkkA ua0 2] dqpyk gqvk ?kko ftl ij [kwu tek gqvk FkkA 6 lseh0 x 2 lseh0 x gM~Mh dh xgjk ckM+ Hkgks ijA ua0 3] dqpyk gqvk ?kko ftlesa [kwu tek gqvk 1 lseh0 x vk/kk lseh0 x gM~Mh dh xgjk ckM+ Hkgks ijA ua0 4 dqpyk gqvk ?kko 6 lseh0 2 lseh0 gM~Mh rd xgjk ysQ~V isjkbVy cksu dk QsDpjA ua0 5] dqpyk gqvk ?kko ftl ij [kwu tek gqvk 4 lseh0 x 1 lseh0 x cksu MhM flj ds vksDlhihVy Hkkx ijA ua0 6] dqpyk gqvk ?kko ftl ij [kwu tek gqvk Fkk 3 lseh0 x 1 lseh0 vksDlhikVy ijA ua0 7] [kjkasp ftl ij dkykiu vk;k Fkk 1 lseh x 1 lseh0 ckM+ dksguh ds ihNys Hkkx ijA ua0 8] [kjksap ftl ij [kwu tek gqvk 2 lseh0 x 1 lseh0 ck;s xky ijA ua0 9] [kjkasp ftl ij dkykiu vk;k gqvk Fkk vk/kk lseh0 x vk/kk lseh0 ck;sa Vkax ij mijh HkkxA ua0 10] [kjksap ftl ij dkykiku gqvk FkkA 3 lseh0 x <+kbZ lseh0 ckbZ Vkax ds e/; Hkkx ijA ua0 11] mij dh peM+h dk EYVhiky D;wfVdy yksl tks 8 ls 10 Fks vk/kk lseh0 x vk/kk lseh0 ck;sa dksguh ds lkeusA ua0 12 eYVh; D;wfVdy yksl 18 ls 20 la[;k vk/kk lseh0 x vk/kk lseh0 ck;sa ?kqVus ds lkeus Hkhrjh Hkkx ijA ua0 13 eYVhiy D;wVhdy yksl 18&20 Fks vk/kk lseh0 vk/kk lseh0 ck;sa iko ij j[kus ijA vkUrfjd ijh{k.k & flj [kksyk x;kA flj ds QsUVy o isjkbZVy cksu ij MksfeusVsM QsDpj ckM+ vksjA flj dh peM+h ds uhps [kwu dk FkDdk tek gqvkA flj dh gM~Mh [kksyus ij QzsUV o isjkbVy cksu Hkkx ij [kwu tek gqvk FkkA Ldy ds ,sUVhjhy vkSj feMy dzksjsfl;k esa QszDpj FkkA czsu dh <+dus okys f>Yyh ckbZ rjQ 7 lseh0 2 lseh0 dVh gqbZ FkhA czsu esMy tgka ls QVk gqvk Fkk czsu fVL;w ogka ls ckgj vk;k gqvk FkkA ckbZ rjQ tgka f>Yyh dVh gqbZ Fkh cszu fVL;w dqpyk gqvk FkkA eYVhiy yslsjsVsM oq.M vk/kk lseh0 x vk/kk lseh0 czsu isUVy iSjkbVy ,aM Veiksjy ij Fks ckb rjQ FksA " 26. PW/9 Lehru, deposed about sending the forwarding letter to the Forensic Science Laboratory by S.P. Office Bhilwara. 27. As per the evidence available on record, there is only circumstantial evidence, on which the learned trial Judge relied and after appreciation of the circumstantial evidence, considered the seven circumstances against the accused appellant and sentenced the accused appellant as above. 28. We have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and also evaluated and scanned the evidence on record. 29. The case entirely hinges upon the circumstantial evidence. The wooden log which was used as weapon of offence is of 7 kgs. weight and its diameter is also about 16 fingers. 30. We are in complete agreement with the argument advanced by the defence counsel that the multiple injuries of very very small dimension cannot be caused by such an object. The blood on the said wooden log is told to be spread over 6 to 7 inches length and 3 to 4 inches in width , which is also an additional doubtful circumstance. Further, had there been an intention to kill Harlal, the accused would have carried with himself weapon also. It is undenied and undeviated that the person who allegedly killed had not brought any weapon with him. Of course the death of Harlal is homicide, but till a chain of circumstances, pointing out at the guilt of accused and excluding all probabilities of his innocence, have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, accused appellant cannot be held guilty of offence charged. Therefore, looking to the entirety of facts and evidence available on record, the conviction cannot be sustained. 31. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the accused appellant Ratan Lal s/o Pyarchand is acquitted of the charge levelled against him under section 302 and 447 IPC. The judgment and order dated 27.02.2004 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge,(Fast Track) No.1, Bhilwara , in Sessions Case No.60/2003 is set aside. The accused appellant Ratan Lal be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.Appeal Allowed. *******