Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1634 (RAJ)

Ratan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2014-10-09

ATUL KUMAR JAIN, GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This jail appeal was filed by accused-appellant Ratan Lal against the judgment dated 4.3.2006 by Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 45/2005 titled as State v. Ratan Lal. By the impugned judgment accused-appellant Ratan Lal was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and, in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo one year's additional imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code by the impugned judgment and he was sentenced to five year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and, in default of payment of fine, three months' additional imprisonment was ordered against him by the trial court. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently as per judgment of the trial court. Accused appellant is in jail since the date of his arrest, i.e., 20.6.2005. 2. Mr. K.R. Bishnoi was appointed Amicus Curiae to represent the case of the appellant but in the course of time he did not take interest in prosecuting this appeal and then the accused-appellant hired the services of Shri K.R. Bhati, Advocate and so this appeal has finally been argued by Mr. K.R. Bhati on behalf of the accused-appellant. 3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case. Our appreciation of evidence is as under:- 4. Report Ex.P.22 was lodged by Bhanwar Lal on 9.6.2005 at Police Station, Bhainsroadgarh, District Chittorgarh, on the basis of which proceeding of inquest was started and then FIR No. 51/2005 under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code was formally registered and charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code against accused-appellant Ratan Lal. 5. In FIR Ex.P.22 it was mentioned by Bhanwar Lal that on that day when he went to fetch a pail of water from a well then he found therein dead body of a lady. He narrated the fact to Kishan Lal and then people of village and police persons gathered on the spot and then report Ex.P.22 was submitted to the police at the spot itself. He narrated the fact to Kishan Lal and then people of village and police persons gathered on the spot and then report Ex.P.22 was submitted to the police at the spot itself. An oral report of Bheru Lal Ex.P.12 was also recorded by the police on 19.6.2005 at 10.30 a.m. and in this report, uncle of Smt. Gheesi Bai w/o Ratan Lal had expressed his apprehension about murder of Smt. Gheesi Bai by her husband Ratan Lal because both were not having harmonious relations since some time. A quarrel had also taken place in the previous night between the two and then after Smt. Gheesi Bai and Ratan Lal both were missing from their residence. 6. Bhanwar Lal is PW-12 and Bheru Lal is PW-6. Bheru Lal has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Bheru Lal states that he does not know about the real culprit who had killed his niece. PW-12 Bhanwar Lal also states that he had seen dead body of a lady floating in the well but he does not know whose body it was. 7. PW-18 Mithu Lal, the then S.H.O., of Police Station, Bhainsroadgarh, District Chittorgarh has stated that the body of lady was taken out from the well, inquest report was prepared and then FIR No. 51/2005 was registered by him on the basis of oral report of Bheru Lal. He further states that body was in decomposed condition. He further states that on the basis of apprehension expressed by Bheru Lal, he arrested accused Ratan Lal on 20.6.2005 and on 21.6.2005, accused Ratan Lal while in custody, gave an information about the dead body of his wife lying in well and he also expressed his desire to get the blood stained clothes recovered from his house. Mithu Lal, S.H.O. further states that in presence of witnesses Mangi Lal and Kela, he recovered the blood stained clothes of accused Ratan Lal from his house. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that PW-1 Mangi Lal states that recovery of blood stained clothes of accused Ratan Lal from his house by police was not made in his presence and he signed the recovery memo without knowing its contents. Kela has been examined by the prosecution as PW-15 and he also states that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.1 and he had signed Ex.P.1 without reading it. Kela has been examined by the prosecution as PW-15 and he also states that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.1 and he had signed Ex.P.1 without reading it. He also does not state that blood stained clothes of accused Ratan Lal were recovered from the house of Ratan Lal in his presence. 9. No doubt, as per FSL report Ex.P.27, pant(Article-10) and shirt (Article-11) sent for serological examination to FSL were found blood stained but blood group of these stains was not determined by FSL and the blood group was also not compared with blood of accused Ratan Lal or deceased Smt. Gheesi Bai. 10. Recovery memo of blood stained clothes of accused was prepared on 25.6.2005. It does not appear probable that accused would not have washed the blood stains of his clothes for one or two weeks and he will keep the blood stained clothes in his house so that he may be apprehended any time on the charge of murder of his wife. Thus, the recovery memo made by the Investigating Officer Mithu Lal does not appear to be reliable. 11. Recovery of dead body from well, recovery of a stone from the spot and recovery of one tops (earing)of deceased lady lying near spot also does not connect the accused-appellant for the offence of murder. 12. PW-14 Dr. Manish Lahoti had examined the dead body of Smt. Gheesi Bai and has given the Post-mortem Report Ex.P.23. He states that Smt. Gheesi Bai must have died before five to seven days from the date of postmortem and she appeared to have died by internal injury caused to her brain causing shock to her. He says that injury was fatal and must have been caused by a blunt weapon. 13. PW-2 Suresh is a hostile witness. He does not support memo Ex.P.2 by which clothes of dead body was recovered by the police as well as memo Ex.P.3 by which a stone weighing 15 kilograms was recovered which had been tied with the 'sari' of Smt. Gheesi Bai and which was lying in the well. 14. PW-3 Mohan is also a hostile witness. He says that his police statement Ex.P.5 is false and he had never given such statement. PW-4 Mohan is also a hostile witness and he also states that his alleged police statement Ex.P.6 was not true and was not dictated by him. 15. 14. PW-3 Mohan is also a hostile witness. He says that his police statement Ex.P.5 is false and he had never given such statement. PW-4 Mohan is also a hostile witness and he also states that his alleged police statement Ex.P.6 was not true and was not dictated by him. 15. PW-5 Sagar Mal is a formal witness of site plan Ex.P.7, Panchnama of dead body Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9, seizure memo of stone Ex.P.10 and memo about funeral proceedings Ex.P.11. PW-7 Heera Lal also states that he had signed Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 but he states that contents of Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 were not explained to him. 16. PW-8 Mohan Singh, H.C. is carrier of seized articles to FSL. PW-9 Rajendra Singh is also a formal witness of seizure of dead body, blood smeared soil and stone etc. PW-16 Narayan Singh is also carrier of samples. PW-17 Heera Lal,S.I. also states that he had taken FSL report Ex.P.27 in the investigation file. 17. PW-10 Smt. Bhanwari Bai was declared hostile and she has refused to coroborate her police statement Ex.P.21 in toto. PW-11 Ram Chandra has also stated nothing implicating accused-appellant. PW-13 Udai Lal also states that he does not know that how Smt. Gheesi Bail met with her death. 18. Accused-appellant Ratan Lal had shown his ignorance about the cause of death of his wife in his statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code but if we look into the whole evidence which has been produced by the prosecution in the trial court against the accused-appellant Ratan Lal then it can be said that only on the basis of alleged recovery of blood stained pant and shirt after five days of the arrest of the accused-appellant from his house, was the only evidence against accused-appellant Ratan Lal in this case and that recovery has also not been duly proved by the prosecution. Motbirs of the alleged recovery do not support the factum of recovery. Recovery of stone and tops(earrings) lying near the dead body is meaningless in the case. Recovery of stone allegedly tied with the 'sari' of deceased lady recovered from well is also meaningless to prove the charge of murder against accused-appellant 19. Motbirs of the alleged recovery do not support the factum of recovery. Recovery of stone and tops(earrings) lying near the dead body is meaningless in the case. Recovery of stone allegedly tied with the 'sari' of deceased lady recovered from well is also meaningless to prove the charge of murder against accused-appellant 19. Thus, it can be said that the prosecution story was full of doubt and only on the basis of doubt, the trial court has convicted the accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. We are of the opinion that benefit of reasonable doubt should have ben given by the trial court to accused-appellant Ratan Lal which was not given by that court and so this appeal filed by accused-appellant Ratan Lal deserves to be accepted, which is hereby accepted and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against accused-appellant Ratan Lal under Section 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code are hereby quashed and set aside. He is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. He is in jail, he be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Copy of this judgment along with record of the trial court be sent back within seven days. Two copies of the judgment should immediately be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent also for doing needful in compliance of this judgment.Appeal Allowed. *******