Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 544 (RAJ)

Ram Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2010-03-09

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2010
Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.—By way of this criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the complainant petitioner Ram Kumar has prayed to set-aside the order dated 6th March, 2003 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh in Criminal Revision No. 15/2003, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the criminal revision filed by the accused respondents and quashed the order dated 22nd February, 2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghadsana in Criminal Case No. 134/2003 pertaining to FIR No. 112/2001 of P.S. Ghadsana registered for the offences under Sections 306 and 120B of Indian Penal Code. 2. Skipping unnecessary details, contextual facts, in nub, depict thus: "One complaint by Ram Kumar came to be filed on 2nd March, 2001 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghadsana, which was sent for investigation to police under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. As per the complaint, two daughters of Het Ram namely Birma and Indraj were married to two brothers, the complainant Ram Kumar and deceased Jugal Kishore at village Chunavad. It is alleged that both the wives at the instance of their father Het Ram, used to often scuffle with their husbands. It has emerged that Jugal Kishore was a bit emotional and one day he consumed pesticides, resulting into his death. The Executive Magistrate conducted proceedings under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. but after 6 or 7 months of the death of Jugal Kishore, one letter was traced in an attachie, which disclosed the manner of incident. This letter revealed that he committed suicide at the instigation of his father-in-law Het Ram. It has also emerged that the daughters of Het Ram also at the instance of their father, used to quarrel with their husbands. They created such a situation before Jugal Kishore, which led him to commit suicide. Police registered the case and commenced investigation. After completion of investigation, the police did not find any evidence against the accused persons, as a result of which a Final Report un-occurred was given. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghadsana took cognizance of the offences under Sections 306 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code on protest petition having been filed by the complainant. The order of taking cognizance dated 22nd February, 2003 was challenged by the accused persons except Het Ram before the Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, who allowed the revision and set-aside the impugned order of taking cognizance. The order of taking cognizance dated 22nd February, 2003 was challenged by the accused persons except Het Ram before the Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, who allowed the revision and set-aside the impugned order of taking cognizance. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondent and learned PP appearing for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the impugned order rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh was ex-facie illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record. Learned Judicial Magistrate, having applied his mind, rightly took cognizance of the offences under Sections 306 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh arbitrarily, without considering the statements of Ram Kumar, Bhagirath, Indraj, Sohan Lal, Jagdish, Lal Chand Ram Narayan, Bimla and Vijay Singh, arrived at a finding, which was not in consonance with the evidence on record. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh deserves to be set-aside. 5. E Contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper. He further canvassed that 4-5 days prior to the death of Jugal Kishore, Indraj had gone to her parents home and Jugal Kishore died in his own house when neither Het Ram was there nor his wife Indraj was there. Thus, there was no evidence which could prove that the suicide was abetted by the accused persons. 6. He took me through the statements and other relevant material on record and contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge analyzed the statements and other attending circumstances of the case in detail and rightly allowed the revision and set-aside the proceedings initiated by the learned trial Court. 7. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. came to be filed mainly on the basis of one letter (suicidal note) which was left by the deceased Jugal Kishore. This letter is found to have been traced by the complainant after approximately 7 months of the death of Jugal Kishore. This letter is found to have been traced by the complainant after approximately 7 months of the death of Jugal Kishore. During the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer, it emerged that one suicidal note was already lying in the pocket of the pant being worn by the deceased, but at the time of cremation, it was made to disappear for one or the other reason. It is not revealed as to where did that letter ultimately go? but according to the complainant Ram Kumar it was traced only in the attachie when he was managing clothes and other things. It is also noticed that the so-called suicidal note left by the deceased Jugal Kishore was sent for comparison of hand writing of Jugal Kishore to Forensic Science Laboratory alongwith other undisputed writings. The Forensic Science Laboratory did not give any definite opinion and submitted as under: "It is not possible to express an opinion on the basis of material at hand." 8. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is very relevant to examine the post mortem report of Jugal Kishore. When the dead body of Jugal Kishore was brought to Doctor for conducting post mortem, it was revealed by the attendants that Jugal Kishore, he being a psychiatric case, consumed pesticides which resulted into his death. The visceras were preserved and sent for chemical and hystopathological examination to FSL. The report of FSL is as under: "On chemical examination, portions of viscera (1-5) from packets marked 1 and 2 respectively gave positive tests for the presence of Zinc Phospide." 9. From the above evidence emerging on record, it is tangible that Jugal Kishore died on account of having consumed poisonous substance containing Zinc Phosphide. 10. Now the question arises as to whether the respondents No. 2 & 3 as also Het Ram instigated Jugal Kishore to commit suicide? 11. The circumstances as also the ocular evidence emerging on record revealed that upto a period of 7 months, none was in a position to say as to whether the Jugal Kishore committed suicide of his own or he committed suicide at the instigation of Het Ram and respondents No. 2 and 3. 11. The circumstances as also the ocular evidence emerging on record revealed that upto a period of 7 months, none was in a position to say as to whether the Jugal Kishore committed suicide of his own or he committed suicide at the instigation of Het Ram and respondents No. 2 and 3. It came out only after seven months of the death of Jugal Kishore when so-called written letter of Jugal Kishore was traced in attachie and this is the letter, which became the basis of the complaint, which was filed by the complainant Ram Kumar before the Judicial Magistrate, Ghadsana. There being no definite evidence with regard to the disputed letter so called written by the deceased Jugal Kishore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, having found no substance and merit in this case, set-aside the order of taking cognizance passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghadsana. 12. So far as the ocular evidence of witnesses namely Ram Kumar, Bhagirath, Indraj, Sohan Lal, Jagdish, Lal Chand, Ram Narayan, Bimla and Vijay Singh is concerned, they never came forward and gave any statement, but on complaint, having been filed by Ram Kumar, all these witnesses backed him. In fact it is the letter which ultimately became the basis of initiation of the criminal proceedings before Judicial Magistrate, Ghadsana, but the FIR is found to have been lodged after an inordinate delay of 7 months. 13. In Thulia Kali vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in AIR 1973 SC page 501, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus: "First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroboration the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the report can hardly be over-estimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first Information Report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of after-thought. Delay in lodging the first Information Report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of after-thought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained." 14. In the instant case, the death of Jugal Kishore took place on 30th July, 2000, converso the complaint was filed on 2nd March, 2001, approximately after seven months of the death of deceased Jugal Kishore. The complainant has not furnished any reasonable explanation of an inordinate delay of 7 months in filing the complaint. Ocular evidence emerging during investigation is of no avail if it is recorded after seven months of the occurrence. Such evidence inspires no confidence rather it looses its evidentiary value. Learned Judicial Magistrate, albeit took cognizance of the offence under Section 306 of IPC, but the revisional court having analyzed the statements of the witnesses, recorded by the investigating officer in detail, after applying his mind, arrived at a correct finding that no offence under Section 306 and 120B of IPC was made out. 15. The petitioner has come by way of filing a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, but it appears that by way of filing this petitioner, the complainant has abused the process of the Court. 16. It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments that inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. In the instant case at hand, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh has rightly arrived at a finding that no offence under Section 306 and 120B of IPC was made out from the material available on record. 17. For the reasons stated above, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being bereft of merits stands dismissed.