Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1758 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Uda Ram

2015-10-07

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29.01.1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No.62/1994 whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that PW-7 Birbal S/o Mangla Ram submitted a written report (Exhibit P/24) on 28.3.1992 stating therein that he has three sons viz. Dharm Pal, Hetram and Rameshwar. Dharmpal and Hetram are married and Dharmpal is residing separately in Sunderpura. In the evening, his grand-son Madan came to his house and informed that his mother Sharda went to field, but she did not return. Thereupon he, his son Het Ram and Ram Lal S/o Joora Ram Meghwal went to the field for searching Sharda and many other villagers followed them. At about 07:30 P.M., when they reached the agriculture field of Jagseet Singh S/o Bhupendra Singh, then in mustard crop, Uda Ram found dead body of Sharda and called them and when they reached the spot, they found Sharda lying there and her neck was tied with bed sheet, her tongue protruded out and blood was also coming out from her mouth. It is further stated that he thereafter sent Kumbha Ram and Hetram to call parents of Sharda and he went to report the matter to the police that some body has killed Sharda by strangling her in the field of Jagseet Singh. 3. On receiving this report, the police registered the FIR No.71/1992 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and started investigation. After conclusion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and also got exhibited several documents and articles. The statement of accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and several documents were also exhibited in defence. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and analysing the prosecution evidence, learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C by giving benefit of doubt. 6. The statement of accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and several documents were also exhibited in defence. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and analysing the prosecution evidence, learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C by giving benefit of doubt. 6. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused-respondent by producing PW-3 Ganga Ram in front of whom the accused-respondent confessed his crime and by recovery of pendent belonging to the deceased from PW-2 Prithvi Raj to whom it was sold by the accused-respondent. It is argued that from above two sets of evidence, the prosecution has proved the case against the accused-respondent beyond doubt but learned trial court has disbelieved the said evidence in illegal manner. 7. On the strength of above arguments, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that this criminal appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be set aside and the accused-respondent be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. 8. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment and carefully scanned the record of the trial court. 9. To prove the guilt of the accused-respondent, the prosecution has produced PW-3 Ganga Ram while claiming that the accused-respondent confessed that he has committed murder of Sharda W/o Dharm Pal on 27.3.1992. Learned trial court has observed that as per the statement of PW-3 Ganga Ram, the accused-respondent confessed his crime in front of him, however, he denied that the said confession was made by the accused-respondent before him on 29.3.1992. The trial court has observed that the statement of PW-3 Ganga Ram was recorded by the police that for the first time on 11.6.1992, i.e. after two and a half months of the incident. The trial court has also observed that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and has to be deal with carefully. It is also observed that the conduct of PW-3 Ganga Ram was very unnatural because he did not inform anybody about the confession made by the accused-respondent for about two and a half months. Learned trial court has also observed that in his cross-examination, PW-3 Ganga Ram has admitted that he is relative of complainant PW-7 Birbal Ram, father-in-law of deceased. Learned trial court has also observed that in his cross-examination, PW-3 Ganga Ram has admitted that he is relative of complainant PW-7 Birbal Ram, father-in-law of deceased. The trial court has also observed that the PW-3 Ganga Ram, in his statement, has stated that the accused-respondent confessed his crime in front of him and Chhotu Ram, but said Chhotu Ram was not produced by the prosecution as witness. After taking into consideration the contradictions in the statement of PW-3 Ganga Ram, learned trial court has disbelieved the testimony of said witness. 10. After carefully examining the statement of the PW-3 Ganga Ram and taking into consideration the conduct of said witness and severe contradictions in his statement, we are of the opinion that the trial court has rightly disbelieved the said witness. 11. So far as the recovery of pendent belonging to the deceased is concerned, the learned trial court has observed that the said pendent was recovered from PW-2 Prithvi Raj on 14.6.1992 vide Exhibit P/18 in the presence of witnesses Mani Ram and Ram Narayan. Learned trial court has noticed that the said pendent was not recovered at the instance of the accused-respondent as he has not given any information about the said pendent under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned trial court has observed that PW-2 Prithvi Raj has stated in his statement that the accused-respondent sold the said pendent to him on 3.4.1992 whereas in the police statement, he has stated that the said pendent was sold to him by the accused-respondent on 4.3.1992. It has also been observed by learned trial court that it was not identified by any witness that the said pendent belongs to the deceased. It is also been observed that the witnesses of the recovery of the said pendent viz. Mani Ram and Ram Narayan have not been produced as prosecution witnesses by the prosecution. It has also been observed by the trial court that as per PW-2 Prithvi Raj, when the accused-respondent sold the said pendent to him, Mani Ram was also there, but he was also not produced as witness. After taking into consideration the evidence of PW-2 Prithvi Raj and other prosecution evidences, the trial court has held that the testimony of PW-2 Prithvi Raj is not reliable. 12. After taking into consideration the evidence of PW-2 Prithvi Raj and other prosecution evidences, the trial court has held that the testimony of PW-2 Prithvi Raj is not reliable. 12. After going through the statement of PW-2 Prithvi Raj and other evidences, we are also of the opinion that the trial court has rightly disbelieved the testimony of PW-2 Prithvi Raj as his evidence is not conclusive to connect the accused-respondent with the commission of offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C. 13. We are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt by producing cogent and reliable evidence and, therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting him for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. Hence, there is no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.