Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1557 (RAJ)

Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2014-09-22

ATUL KUMAR JAIN, GOVIND MATHUR

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by accused-appellant Ram Lal, who has been convicted and sentenced on 23.5.2006 in Sessions Case No. 68/2005 titled as State v. Ram Lal (relating to FIR No. 228/2004) as follows:- (1) Section 302 I.P.C. : Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month's simple imprisonment. (2) Section 3/25 Arms Act,1959 : Three years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment fine, one month's imprisonment. (3) Section 3/27 Arms Act, 1959 : Seven years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month's imprisonment. 2. All the three substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the trial court. 3. As per the prosecution story, accused-appellant Ram Lal had committed a murder of Ram Narayan also in the past but he was acquitted by the court in that case. After acquittal against the charge of murder of Ram Narayan, accused-appellant was annoyed with the friendship of Ishar Ram with Prabhu who was son of Ram Narayan and because of that enmity, he fired at Ishar Ram also causing his murder on 13.6.2004 in the village Sinjguru. The trial court has relied upon the statements of three eye-witnesses as well as upon the recovery of pistol from the possession of accused-appellant Ram Lal and then convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and under different sections of Arms Act, 1959. 4. In appeal, the accused-appellant has argued that the telephonic information was received by the police on 13.6.2004 at 5.00 p.m. but the FIR Ex.P.1 lodged by PW-1 Sukha Ram was registered at 8.30 p.m. and the delay of three and half hours between the two information's has not been explained by the prosecution. It has further been argued by the accused-appellant that all the three so called eye-witnesses Sukha Ram, Koja Ram and Dhura Ram are relatives and interested witnesses, so their statements should not have been blindly relied upon by the court because their statements are unnatural and against the normal human behaviour. It has further been argued that the recovery of pistol from the possession of the accused-appellant was not duly proved and so on the basis of recovery also, accused-appellant must not have been implicated. It has further been argued that the recovery of pistol from the possession of the accused-appellant was not duly proved and so on the basis of recovery also, accused-appellant must not have been implicated. It has further been argued that defence witnesses had made out a more probable story which could have been relied upon by the trial court and at least benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused-appellant. 5. In the light of the arguments advanced by the accused-appellant, we have perused the record of the case. Death of Ishar Ram by a fire from the pistol is not disputed in the case. In his statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, accused-appellant Ram Lal had taken a plea of alibi. He has stated that on the day of incident, he was not on the place of occurrence but he was in Haryana. He has also denied the recovery of pistol from him. 6. DW-1 Navratan is resident of Sinjguru. He states that on the day of incident Ram Lal was not in the village Sinjguru. DW-2 Dilip kumar says that on 24.5.2005 he was also in police custody along with accused-appellant Ram Lal and he says that no pistol was recovered from Ram Lal on that day. DW-3 Sukh Ram also states that some unknown person must have killed Ishar Ram and on the day of incident, Ram Lal was not in the village and Ram Lal has been falsely implicated in the case. We have perused the statements of all the three defence witnesses and we are convinced that their statements are not reliable at all. These witnesses appear to be interested in accused-appellant and so they have concocted a false story of alibi of accused-appellant Ram Lal which is not probable at all. 7. On the other hand, if we go through the statements of three eye-witnesses, PW-1 Sukha Ram, PW-2 Koja Ram and PW-3 Dhura Ram, we find that all these witnesses have given natural and true version of the incident in a lucid manner. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the statements of these three witnesses. There is no contradiction in the statements of these three witnesses. Their presence on the spot is also not doubtful in the circumstances of the case. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the statements of these three witnesses. There is no contradiction in the statements of these three witnesses. Their presence on the spot is also not doubtful in the circumstances of the case. A strong motive has been shown that accused-appellant Ram Lal killed his opponent Ishar Ram because Ishar Ram had supported Prabhu in the criminal case of murder of father of Prabhu and since Ishar Ram was friend of Prabhu, so Ishar Ram was murdered by Ram Lal. 8. Koja Ram is real brother of Ishar Ram. Sukha Ram (PW-1) is distant cousin of deceased Ishar Ram, but only because of their relation with the deceased, their statements cannot be brushed aside. Sukha Ram has clearly stated that on the day of incident, he was sitting with Koja Ram, Ishar Ram and Dhura Ram and they were having conversation at the chouki of Dhura Ram and then Ram Lal, accused-appellant came and admonished Ishar Ram for supporting Prabhu in a criminal case against him and to take revenge of that support, he fired on the chest of Ishar Ram causing his instantaneous death. He states that his parcha-bayan is Ex.P.1. He also supports the seizure memo Ex.P.6 by which pistol was seized from the possession of the accused-appellant Ram Lal by the police. He states that Ram Lal was acquitted in first case of murder and within three months of his acquittal, he had committed second murder. We find no reason to disbelieve the statement of Sukha Ram. 9. PW-2 Koja Ram is also the eye-witness of the incident and he also fully supports the prosecution story. There is no contradiction in his statement. He has fully supported the statement of PW-1 Sukha Ram. He admits that pistol was recovered from the possession of the accused after a few months of the incident. He says that previously also Ram Lal had committed murder of real brother of Dhura Ram. We find no reason to disbelieve the innocent and natural statement of Koja Ram also. 10. PW-3 Dhura Ram has also fully supported the prosecution story and there is no contradiction in the statement of this witness, though much efforts were made to contradict him from the statements of other witnesses. He states that previously accused-appellant had committed murder of Ram Narayan also. 10. PW-3 Dhura Ram has also fully supported the prosecution story and there is no contradiction in the statement of this witness, though much efforts were made to contradict him from the statements of other witnesses. He states that previously accused-appellant had committed murder of Ram Narayan also. He states that Ram Narayan was not his real brother but he was his cousin. There is no contradiction in the statement of this witness also and he also appears to be a natural and truthful witness who may be relied upon. 11. PW-6 Dr. Madan Gopal Pediwal proves the fatal fire arm injury in the chest of Ishar Ram causing his death. One bullet was also recovered lying inside the lungs and ribs of the deceased by him. 12. PW-8 Pramod Kumar, the then S.H.O. of Police Station Nokha proves that telephonic information about the fact of murder was given to him by Ram Chandra who was husband of the lady Sarpanch of the village. He states that Ram Chandra was not inclined to give his statement under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, so he was not examined by him. He states that after receiving the information, he went to the place of information where he examined Sukha Ram and his Parcha-bayan was recorded by him. He states that accused Ram Lal had absconded from the spot and for long time he could not have been taken in custody. He further states that since the accused was a dangerous person who had killed one person earlier also, so no body come forward to give statement against him except the three eye-witnesses present on the spot. 13. PW-11 Gopal Ram, Sub-inspector proves the seizure memo of pistol and he states that information of recovery was given by accused Ram Lal which was recorded on 24.5.2005 at 4.30 p.m. as Ex.P. 22. He states that as per information Ex.P. 22, he recovered pistol from the house of Ram Lal and seizure memo Ex.P. 6 was prepared by him. He admits that the recovery of pistol was made in presence of Sukha Ram and Koja Ram who were eye-witnesses also of the incident. For obvious reason, no other motbirs could have been associated with the process of seizure of pistol by the police. 14. He admits that the recovery of pistol was made in presence of Sukha Ram and Koja Ram who were eye-witnesses also of the incident. For obvious reason, no other motbirs could have been associated with the process of seizure of pistol by the police. 14. Thus, we see that in the circumstances of the case, there was no inordinate or malicious delay on the part of the police in reaching the spot and recording the statements of the eye-witnesses. No doubt recovery of pistol was made after an interval of about eleven months but irrespective of recovery also, the statements of the eye-witnesses in itself are sufficient evidence in this case to prove the guilt of accused under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The trial court has convicted accused Ram Lal under Section 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 also. We see no reason to disturb that finding also. In the circumstances of the case, recovery of pistol from the accused and use of pistol by accused for killing Ishar Ram is also not doubtful. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court has also rightly convicted the accused-appellant Ram Lal under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and hence this appeal of appellant Ram Lal deserves to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed and the impugned order dated 23.5.2006 of the trial court is upheld. Apparently, the accused-appellant Ram Lal is in jail since the date of his arrest, so a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for his record and one copy of the judgment should be given to the accused-appellant. The record of the lower court with a copy of this judgment should be sent back to the trial court within three days.Appeal dismissed. *******