Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 831 (RAJ)

Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2014-04-02

ATUL KUMAR JAIN, GOVIND MATHUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : GOVIND MATHUR, J. By the judgment impugned dated 29.09.2008 learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bhilwara convicted the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 201 IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the accused has been sentenced to undergo life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- with a default stipulation. For the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC, the sentence awarded is of seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation and for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, the accused has been sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed for adjudication of the present appeal are that on 24.03.2007, Mr. Chhagan Lal Bheel (P.W.1) submitted a written report to the Station House Officer, Police Station Raipur with assertion that on 23.03.2007, while proceeding to have labour, he left his wife Mrs. Ambu Devi and children at home. On returning to home in evening, he did not find his elder daughter Deu, aged eight years. Mrs. Ambu, who returned to home at 07.00 p.m. from the fields, conveyed that she left Deu at home to look after the other young kids. Necessary search of the missing girl was made in night, but of no consequence. In morning, some information was received about recovery of a dead body of a girl hanging on a tree and on seeing that was found to be of Deu. 3. On basis of the written report aforesaid, investigation commenced as per the provisions of Section 174 Cr. P.C. The corpse of deceased Deu was subjected to autopsy and according to the report of that, the cause of death was peripheral circulatory restriction due to electric shock. The viscera of stomach, its contents, liver, spline and kidney were taken and sent for their examination to the forensic science laboratory. 4. After lapse of about one month and six days, an other report (Ex.P/1) was submitted by Mr. Chhagan Bheel (P.W.1) to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Raipur on 30.04.2007. In this report, Mr. Chhagan Bheel stated that on 09.03.2007 at about 09.00 a.m. he left his house to have labour. His daughter Deu at that time was left at the house of Sohan S/o Nan Ji Bheel. Chhagan Bheel (P.W.1) to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Raipur on 30.04.2007. In this report, Mr. Chhagan Bheel stated that on 09.03.2007 at about 09.00 a.m. he left his house to have labour. His daughter Deu at that time was left at the house of Sohan S/o Nan Ji Bheel. In evening, the girl was not found at home and in the next morning her dead body was found hanging on a tree. On 26.04.2007, a meeting of Bheel Samaj was called at the temple of Bhagwan Jagdish, where Sohan confessed that he killed Deu. The confession was made in the presence of Kana Bheel, Beni Ram, Raju, Rameshwar, Leharu, Nanda and hundreds of other persons. On the basis of this report, a first information report bearing No.40/2007 was registered against Sohan for investigation of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 5. During the course of investigation, the investigating agency arrested accused and at his instance, a piece of wire was recovered. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent court and after hearing counsel for the accused, the accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC. On denial of the same, trial commenced as desired. 6. The prosecution supported its case with the aid of 11 witnesses and 42 documents. An opportunity was accorded to the accused to explain adverse and incriminating circumstances available in prosecution evidence against him. The accused termed the entire prosecution evidence false. 7. Learned trial court after examining the evidence available on record held the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 201 IPC; thus, recorded the conviction and awarded the sentence. The conviction of the accused is based on circumstantial evidence, that is of recovery of a piece of wire and extra-judicial confession said to be made before P.W.1 Chhagan Lal, P.W.2 Rameshwar, P.W.3 Veni Ram and P.W.7 Mrs. Ambu. 8. In appeal, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant are that : (1) As per the prosecution, a report of the crime was submitted by Chhagan Bheel on 24.03.2007 and thereafter on 30.04.2007. In the report dated 24.03.2007, nothing has been said about leaving of girl 'Deu' at the residence of Sohan. Ambu. 8. In appeal, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant are that : (1) As per the prosecution, a report of the crime was submitted by Chhagan Bheel on 24.03.2007 and thereafter on 30.04.2007. In the report dated 24.03.2007, nothing has been said about leaving of girl 'Deu' at the residence of Sohan. In the report aforesaid, no doubt was disclosed in relation to involvement of any person in the crime, whereas in the report dated 30.04.2007, allegations are made against the accused. All the allegations are afterthought being levelled after the lapse of a period of more than one month. (2) The extra-judicial confession said to be made before Chhagan Lal (P.W.1), Rameshwar (P.W.2), Veni Ram (P.W.3) and Mrs. Ambu (P.W.7) was not made voluntarily. (3) The recovery of the wire is not at all reliable. 9. While meeting with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, it is submitted by Mr. Vishnu Kachchhawaha, learned Public Prosecutor, that the conviction is based on the definite evidence adduced by witnesses before whom a voluntary confession was made by the accused. The recovery of wire also indicates involvement of the accused in the crime in question, thus, the conviction recorded is just and proper. 10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and also examined the record. 11. In view of the medical evidence available on record, there is no doubt about homicidal death of baby Deu. She died due to peripheral circulatory restriction due to electric shock and thereafter her body was hanged on a tree. Hanging of body on a tree indicates about involvement of some person, at least in carrying the body from the spot of occurrence of death to the tree to hang the same. 12. The accused-appellant has been connected with the case on basis of extra-judicial confession said to be made before the prosecution witnesses on 26.04.2007. The confession, as per the document Ex.P/1, was made before 1000-1500 persons including Chhagan Bheel (P.W.1), Rameshwar (P.W.2), Veni Ram (P.W.3) and Mrs. Ambu (P.W.7). Suffice to mention that at the first instance, a report was submitted by Chhagan Bheel to the Station House Officer, Police Station Raipur with assertion that he left his house on 23.03.2007 leaving behind his wife Mrs. Ambu and kids at home. In evening, he did not find his daughter Deu at home. Ambu (P.W.7). Suffice to mention that at the first instance, a report was submitted by Chhagan Bheel to the Station House Officer, Police Station Raipur with assertion that he left his house on 23.03.2007 leaving behind his wife Mrs. Ambu and kids at home. In evening, he did not find his daughter Deu at home. Her dead body came to be recovered in the morning of 24.03.2007. In the report aforesaid, he also mentioned that he was not having doubt on any person in killing of Deu. In this report, he had not said anything about leaving the girl at the residence of Sohan. It is stated that his wife Mrs. Ambu went to the fields of Nan Ji Bheel for cutting wheat yield. The other report was given on 30.04.2007. In this report, a definite allegation was also made against accused Sohan on basis of the extra-judicial confession said to be made on 26.04.2007. The author of the report Ex.P/1 dated 30.04.2007 Mr. Chhagan Bheel (P.W.1) while deposing before the court stated that no report was given by him on 24.03.2007, but the signatures were obtained by the police authorities. As per this witness, he at the first instance lodged report of the crime only on 30.04.2007. 13. Having examined both the reports and the statements of Chhagan Bheel (P.W.1), it is not in dispute that the dead body was recovered on 24.03.2007 and that was subjected to autopsy and subsequent thereto, the same was handed over to Chhagan Bheel for cremation. At the same time, proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P.C. were initiated and while doing so, statements of close relatives of the deceased including parents were drawn. The investigating officer Mr. Manvendra Singh (P.W.11) while deposing before court accepted that on 24.03.2007, Chhagan Bheel submitted a written report in relation to the crime causing death of his daughter Deu. He also stated that Chhagan Bheel also put his signatures on the report. The signatures have been accepted by Chhagan Bheel. The other report is dated 30.04.2007, wherein definite allegation is made against the accused. The allegation is based on extra-judicial confession, that was made on 26.04.2007 in the presence of about 1000-1500 persons. We really fail to understand that if any extra-judicial confession was made by the accused on 26.04.2007, then why report was not made to the police immediately thereafter. The allegation is based on extra-judicial confession, that was made on 26.04.2007 in the presence of about 1000-1500 persons. We really fail to understand that if any extra-judicial confession was made by the accused on 26.04.2007, then why report was not made to the police immediately thereafter. The complainant even after having evidence relating to extra-judicial confession, waited for good three days before submitting the necessary report. This conduct of the complainant creates little doubt about his conduct. These facts indicate that the complainant improved his version at later stage and made allegations against the accused. We are having serious doubts about his version that no report was given by him on 24.03.2007. 14. We have also examined the evidence relating to extra-judicial confession. Mr. Chhagan Bheel (P.W.1) stated that the issue with regard to death of his daughter was brought before the entire Bheel community and a meeting of that took place prior to 25.04.2007. The meeting consumed an entire day. The meeting was attended by 1000-1500 persons including accused Sohan, his father Nan Ji Bheel, Veni Ram, Rameshwar etc. In this meeting, no confession was made by the accused. The other meeting commenced on 25.04.2007 and that continued for more than 36 hours. In this meeting, after the lapse of more than 36 hours, Sohan during night hours accepted that he killed Deu. The other prosecution witnesses, Rameshwar (P.W.2), Veni Ram (P.W.3) and Mrs. Ambu (P.W.7) have also stated the same facts. On consideration of the testimony of all the witnesses named above, it is apparent that big chunk of Bheel Samaj assembled twice to consider the crime relating to death of baby Deu. In the meeting, that consumed the entire day, no confession was made by accused Sohan. In subsequent meeting that consumed about 36 hours, accused Sohan confessed his involvement in the crime in the night hours before the crowd. In the instant matter, it appears that confession was not made, but was borrowed by undertaking meetings of a group of people for good three days. The accused in the first meeting did not confess and in second meeting too, a confession was said to be made by him in night after holding a marathon meeting. In the instant matter, it appears that confession was not made, but was borrowed by undertaking meetings of a group of people for good three days. The accused in the first meeting did not confess and in second meeting too, a confession was said to be made by him in night after holding a marathon meeting. We are having no doubt that if the extra-judicial confession bears confidence and the court is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntary, then conviction can be founded on that. It is well-settled that an extra-judicial confession should always be voluntary and if that is made under threat or pressure, then it is not having adequate credibility. Looking to all these facts, we are of the view that the extra-judicial confession on which the trial court relied upon was not voluntary and as such, conviction could have not been settled thereupon. 15. After holding the extra-judicial confession not trustworthy, the only circumstance against the accused is about recovery of an electric wire. The wire was recovered from an open space after lapse of more than 40 days from the date of the incident. Beside that, the prosecution failed to explain as to how that wire was used for extending current to the girl by the accused, as such, this circumstance is also of no consequence. 16. In view of the discussion made above, this appeal deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 29.09.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.18/2007 is set aside. Accused Sohan Lal S/o Nan Ji Bheel is acquitted from the charges relating to the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 201 IPC. Let he be released from the State custody forthwith, if otherwise not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.