Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1773 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Sitaram

2015-10-09

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.12.1995 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur, (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.12/1995, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence punishable under sections 302 IPC. 2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that PW.1 Rajkumar gave an oral information to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Khunkhuna, District Nagaur, alleging therein that he and four other persons of his village have been doing clothes business in Khunkhuna from last 5-6 years and are residing in a rented house of Tilok Chand Gewaria, near Railway Station, Khunkhuna. Shanker Lal s/o Surja Ram of his village resides in the rented house of Dulichand Khatrik. Today i.e. 1.05.1995 at about 1:00 A.M., Gopal Lal and Gokul came to his house and informed him, Tara Chand, Sheeshpal, Nemichand and Anandi Lal that somebody has stabbed knife blow to Shanker Lal and he was lying unconscious. Then they all along with Gopal went to his house and found Shanker Lal dead on a cot, his intestine protruded from right side of abdomen, which seems that he received a knife injury. While they were inquiring about the incident, at that time, three persons came there along with Sita Ram, whose hands and clothes were stained with blood and Sita Ram informed that first Shanker Lal assaulted him and then he assaulted Shanker Lal and ran away. It is stated that Shanker Lal died on account of the said assault. 3. On receiving this information, FIR No.32/1995 for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC was registered at Police Station, Khunkhuna against Sita Ram. After investigation, the police has filed charge sheet against him for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC. 4. The matter was committed to the trial court and the charges were framed against the accused-respondent for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution has produced as many as 27 witnesses and also exhibited several documents. The statement of accused-respondent was recorded under section 313 CrPC and several documents were also exhibited in defence. The trial court, after hearing the parties and pondering over the evidence produced, has acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence punishable under section 302 IPC vide impugned judgment. 5. The statement of accused-respondent was recorded under section 313 CrPC and several documents were also exhibited in defence. The trial court, after hearing the parties and pondering over the evidence produced, has acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence punishable under section 302 IPC vide impugned judgment. 5. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused-respondent by producing cogent and reliable evidence regarding oral dying declaration made by the deceased before several witnesses. It is also submitted that the prosecution has also produced evidence to the effect that the accused-respondent had confessed his crime before several persons just after the incident. It is argued that despite the said clinching evidence available on record, the learned trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused-respondent from the offence punishable under section 302 IPC. It is argued that the prosecution witnesses viz. PW.1 Rajkumar, PW.14 Madan Lal, PW.22 Nand Lal, PW.23 Nemichand, PW.24 Sheeshpal and PW.25 Tara Chand have specifically stated in their statements that just before his death, deceased Shanker Lal had told them that Sita Ram assaulted him with knife. They have also specifically stated that when some persons brought the accused-respondent to the place of incident, he confessed before them and other persons that he assaulted deceased with knife. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, argued that from the above piece of evidence, the guilt of the accused-respondent is fully proved, however, the learned trial court has disbelieved the testimony of the above named witnesses on the basis of minor contradictions in their testimonies made before the court and the police. 6. On the strength of the above arguments, learned Public Prosecutor has prayed that this appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 20.12.1995 may be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of the accused in commission of crime beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the offence punishable under section 302 IPC. It is argued that all the witnesses viz. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of the accused in commission of crime beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting him from the offence punishable under section 302 IPC. It is argued that all the witnesses viz. PW.1 Rajkumar, PW.14 Madan Lal, PW.22 Nand Lal, PW.23 Nemichand, PW.24 Sheeshpal and PW.25 Tara Chand have nowhere stated in their police statements that deceased told them that he was assaulted by Sita Ram, however, later on all these witnesses have improved their version and introduced the theory of oral dying declaration made by the deceased and, therefore, their testimonies have rightly been disbelieved by the learned trial court. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent that the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused-respondent in front of all the witnesses was also very much doubtful because the other independent witnesses viz. PW.17 Ramprasad, PW.18 Ramdev and PW.19 Gokul Chand, who were present along with the above named witnesses, when some persons allegedly brought the accused-respondent to the place of incident, have not supported their version. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent has also argued that though the police has recovered a knife and blood stained clothes at the instance of the accused-respondent but neither a knife nor the blood stained clothes were produced before the court and no forensic report has been placed on record. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent has, therefore, argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused-respondent by producing cogent and reliable evidence and, therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused-respondent from the offence punishable under section 302 IPC. 8. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties, perused the impugned judgment and scanned through the record of the trial court. 9. Admittedly, during the course of investigation, the police had recovered a blood stained knife and blood stained clothes at the instance of the accused-respondent, however, neither the knife nor the blood stained clothes were produced before the trial court. Similarly, no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory verifying blood on the knife or the clothes recovered at the instance of the accused-respondent was placed before the trial court. 10. Similarly, no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory verifying blood on the knife or the clothes recovered at the instance of the accused-respondent was placed before the trial court. 10. The case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of PW.1 Rajkumar, PW.14 Madan Lal, PW.22 Nand Lal, PW.23 Nemichand, PW.24 Sheeshpal and PW.25 Tara Chand, who have deposed before the learned trial court that when they reached the place of incident, deceased Shanker Lal was shrieking and he told them that Sita Ram has assaulted him with knife. However, during the course of investigation, the said witnesses were confronted with their police statements Ex.D/1, Ex.D/2, Ex.D/5, Ex.D/6 and Ex.D/7 and the witnesses viz. PW.1 Rajkumar, PW.14 Madan Lal, PW.22 Nand Lal, PW.23 Nemichand, PW.24 Sheeshpal and PW.25 Tara Chand have admitted that the said story of oral dying declaration is not mentioned in their police statements though they had informed about the same to the police. In the court statements, PW.1 Rajkumar, PW.14 Madan Lal, PW.22 Nand Lal, PW.23 Nemichand, PW.24 Sheeshpal and PW.25 Tara Chand have stated that accused-respondent was brought to the place of incident by four persons, however, they did not know the names of those persons. However, in their police statements, they have stated that Ramprasad and Ramdev along with two persons had brought the accused-respondent to the place of incident. The above named two persons Ramprasad and Ramdev have deposed before the trial court as PW.17 and PW.18 respectively, however, they have not supported the prosecution story and were declared hostile. In their statements, above named two witnesses have specifically stated that they had not apprehended accused-respondent and also not brought him to the place of incident. The witnesses PW.1 Rajkumar, PW.14 Madan Lal, PW.23 Nemichand, and PW.25 Tara Chand in their court statements have stated that the accused-respondent confessed about the commission of crime in front of PW.6 Radhey Shyam, PW.7 Rama, PW.5 Gopal, PW.19 Gokul Chand and other persons, who have brought the accused-respondent to the place of incident. However, PW.5 Gopal, PW.6 Radhey Shyam, PW.7 Rama and PW.19 Gokul Chand have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. In their cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, they have specifically stated that no such confession was made by the accused-respondent in front of them. Other two witnesses viz. However, PW.5 Gopal, PW.6 Radhey Shyam, PW.7 Rama and PW.19 Gokul Chand have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. In their cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, they have specifically stated that no such confession was made by the accused-respondent in front of them. Other two witnesses viz. PW.17 Ramprasad and PW.18 Ramdev, who were also declared hostile, have not stated that any such confession was made by the accused-respondent before them. Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that witnesses PW.1 Rajkumar, PW.14 Madan Lal, PW.22 Nand Lal, PW.23 Nemichand, PW.24 Sheeshpal and PW.25 Tara Chand have introduced the story of oral dying declaration by the deceased before the trial court though they did not state anything about such dying declaration during the police investigation and the said action of the said witnesses is an afterthought and the same cannot be relied upon. The trial court has, therefore, rightly disbelieved the said piece of evidence produced by the prosecution. 11. It is noticed that though the witnesses PW.1 Rajkumar, PW.14 Madan Lal, PW.22 Nand Lal, PW.23 Nemichand, PW.24 Sheeshpal and PW.25 Tara Chand have stated that the accused-respondent has confessed his crime before them but the other prosecution witnesses, whose presence at the time of said extra judicial confession has not been disputed by the above named witnesses, has not corroborated their version. PW.17 Ramprasad and PW.18 Ramdev, who allegedly brought the accused-respondent to the place of incident have clearly denied that they had brought the accused-respondent to the place of incident on 10.05.1995 in the night at about 1:00 A.M. 12. After carefully examining the evidence produced by the prosecution, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to produce any reliable evidence to prove the fact that the accused-respondent was brought to the place of incident soon after the incident and as such, there is no question of making any confession by him regarding the commission of crime. 13. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused-respondent vide impugned judgment dated 20.12.1995. Hence, we do not find any force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.