Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 875 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Champa Ram @ Champa Lal

2015-04-20

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant cr. appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 31.3.1992 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.160/1991 whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him under Section 302 IPC. 2. As per the brief facts of the case on 9.6.1991 at about 10.10 a.m. one Balu Ram PW-4 lodged a complaint before the SHO, Police Station Jamba alleging therein that yesterday on 8.6.1991 his nephew Triloka Ram S/o Koja Ram informed that he left his house alongwith his father Koja Ram at about 8.00 a.m. alongwith their Ox (Sandh) to the Dhani of Hamir Singh Rajput to take loan from him and upon return when they took some rest under the tree of Khejadi near Sang Singh's Dhani in the field of Sujan Singh Rajput, at that time, the respondent Champa Ram @ Champa Lal came there with Lathi in his hand from Nokada side and with intention to kill his father inflicted Lathi blow on the back side of the neck of deceased Koja Ram and continuously gave several Lathi blows on the body of the deceased Koja Ram. According to author of the FIR, respondent Champa Ram @ Champa Lal was having Lathi upon which iron nails were fitted. It is also stated in the FIR that one Kheta Ram S/o Loona Ram who was picking the pillus from the tree also seen the incident and due to fear Triloka Ram rushed to the complainant and reported the incident to him. Upon receiving above information from Triloka Ram, the author of the FIR alongwith Dharma Ram, Bhoma Ram, Khetaram, Bakata Ram, Ratana Ram and Manaram Bheel rushed to the place of occurrence and saw that Koja Ram was lying died under the tree of Khejari and number of injuries were found upon both hands, ears and other parts of the body. The complainant prayed that action may be taken against the accused Champa Ram @ Champa Lal for committing offence of murder. 3. The SHO, Police Station Jamba registered the FIR No.12/1991 under Section 302 IPC and commenced the investigation. The complainant prayed that action may be taken against the accused Champa Ram @ Champa Lal for committing offence of murder. 3. The SHO, Police Station Jamba registered the FIR No.12/1991 under Section 302 IPC and commenced the investigation. During investigation, SHO, Police Station Jamba investigated the site and prepared the memos of the site, thereafter, arrested the accused respondent Champa Ram @ Champa Lal on 10.6.1991 and after arrest recovered Lathi in pursuance of his information given by him under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. As per the prosecution case, the Lathi was having iron nails. The statements of witnesses were recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, the SHO, Police Station Jamba filed chargesheet in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi against the respondent Champa Ram @ Champa Lal under Section 302 IPC from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Jodhpur for trail. 4. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments framed the charge under Section 302 IPC against the respondent and commenced the trial. In the trial, the statements of PW-1 Asu Singh, PW-2 Dr. Shafi Mohd., PW-3 Triloka Ram, PW-4 Balu Ram, PW-5 Kheta Ram, PW-6 Ratana Ram and PW-7 Padma Ram were recorded and, thereafter, statement of respondent were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded ignorance and denied the charge of prosecution. No specific plea or allegation was leveled by the accused against the witnesses nor any evidence was produced by him in defence. 5. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments acquitted the respondent Champa Ram @ Champa Lal from the charge under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 31.3.1992. 6. In this appeal, the State of Rajasthan is challenging the impugned judgment on various grounds. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that the judgment of acquittal delivered by the District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur is based upon conjecture and surmises, so also, the learned trial court has wrongly disbelieved the testimony of PW-4 Balu Ram, author of FIR and eye witness PW-3 Triloka Ram without cogent reason, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that the judgment of acquittal delivered by the District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur is based upon conjecture and surmises, so also, the learned trial court has wrongly disbelieved the testimony of PW-4 Balu Ram, author of FIR and eye witness PW-3 Triloka Ram without cogent reason, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that in this case the witness PW-3 Triloka Ram is son of the deceased before whom incident took place, therefore, there was no question to disbelieve the testimony of the eye witness Triloka Ram, but the learned trial court while disbelieving the truth narrated by the eye witness PW-3 Triloka Ram, acquitted the respondent from the charge under Section 302 IPC, therefore, it is a fit case in which the judgment of the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and respondent is liable to be punished for offence under Section 302 IPC. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that injuries which is found upon the body of the deceased were corroborated by the most natural witnesses of the incident, so also supported by the witness PW-2 Dr. Safi Mohd., which is further corroborated from the fact that Lathi was recovered as per the information given by the accused, therefore, it is a case in which the prosecution has proved its case by leading trustworthy evidence but the learned trial court erroneously acquitted the respondent from the charge levelled against him for offence under Section 302 IPC while disbelieving the testimony of eye witnesses. In view of the above, it is prayed that the judgment impugned passed by the learned trial court may be quashed and the respondent be punished for alleged offence of murder. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the judgment impugned passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur is based upon the sound appreciation of evidence, so also, on the basis of non-corroboration of the fact of incident by the reliable evidence, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charge leveled against him. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the judgment impugned passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur is based upon the sound appreciation of evidence, so also, on the basis of non-corroboration of the fact of incident by the reliable evidence, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charge leveled against him. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that as per the site plan no blood was found upon the place of occurrence and as per the medical evidence the cause of death is injury no.2 which is punctured wound but Lathi as recovered as per the allegation of prosecution upon information given under Section 27 by the respondent, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the statement of PW-4 Balu Ram and PW-3 Triloka Ram and rejected their testimony so as to convict the respondent for the charge under Section 302 IPC, therefore, there is no force in this appeal. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the entire evidence and finding given by the learned trial court. 12. Admittedly, the FIR filed by the PW-4 Balu Ram is based upon hear say evidence because PW-3 Triloka Ram 12 years old son of the deceased Koja Ram narrated the whole incident to the author of the FIR day before the occurrence upon which the FIR was filed by PW-4 Balu Ram. It is very strange that even if it is presumed that the whole story was narrated by PW-3 Triloka Ram to PW-4 Balu Ram then question arose why the investigating officer recorded the statement of PW-3 Triloka Ram under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after one month. It is very strange that even if it is presumed that the whole story was narrated by PW-3 Triloka Ram to PW-4 Balu Ram then question arose why the investigating officer recorded the statement of PW-3 Triloka Ram under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after one month. The learned trial court observed in the finding that the witness PW-3 Triloka Ram remained in his house after the occurrence, but the investigating officer did not record his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for near about one month and for the first time, the statement of the said eye witness were recorded on 10.7.1991 whereas the occurrence took place on 8.6.1991, therefore, the learned trial court specifically observed in the finding while deciding issue no.2 that testimony of PW-3 Triloka Ram and PW-4 Balu Ram is required to be disbelieved n the ground that PW-4 Balu Ram author of the FIR narrated whole story as per the information given by PW-3 Triloka Ram a day before registration of the FIR being eye witness but statement of eye witness were recorded after one month. Further, there is no ground to accept the testimony of PW-3 Triloka Ram because PW-3 Triloka Ram and PW-5 Kheta Ram so called eye witnesses did not go to the place of occurrence and the other witness PW-5 Kheta Ram did not give any information to the police station or the persons near the place of occurrence. The learned trial court observed that conduct of both the witnesses loudly speaks that they are planted witnesses and there is major contradiction in their statements. In our opinion, the finding given by the learned trial court for acquittal and disbelieving the testimony of PW-3 Triloka Ram, PW-4 Balu Ram and PW-5 Kheta Ram does not require any interference at this stage, because the medical evidence is also not corroborating the prosecution case for the reason that as per the statement of PW-2 Dr. Safi Mohd. the cause of death was injury no.2 and it was punctured wound of 1/4'x ⅙'x 1/2' and the said witness specifically stated in the examination-in-chief that" pksV la[;k nks mWV ij fxjus ls uqdhys LFkku ij fxjus ls ugha vk ldrh gSA vcj dksbZ O;fDr rkjcanh esa ls fudys rks rkj dh otg ls ugha vk ldrhA ydM+h ij dhy yxh gqbZ gks vkSj ml ij fxj tk, rks ;g pksV ugha vk ldrhA " 13. Upon perusal of above statement and the recovery of Lathi, we are of the opinion that learned trial court has rightly observed in the judgment that conviction cannot be based upon the testimony of PW-3 Triloka Ram and PW-4 Balu Ram because medical evidence is not corroborating the allegation of prosecution for inflicting injury no.2 by the respondent. 14. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that finding given by the learned trial court for acquittal of respondent from the charge under Section 302 IPC does not suffer from any illegality or perversity because prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, no interference is required in the judgment impugned whereby the respondent has been acquitted from the charge levelled under Section 302 IPC. 15. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. Hence, this cr. appeal is hereby dismissed. 16. In view of the above, no order is required to be passed on the application filed by the respondent seeking exemption/pardon on attendance before the learned trial court.Appeal dismissed. *******