Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1128 (RAJ)

State v. Tulsi Ram

2016-08-03

KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Kailash Chandra Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 21.01.1992, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Sessions Case No. 46/1987. By which, the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi acquitted all the accused-respondents Tulsi Ram, Dhanraj, Hazari Mal, Tarachand, Smt. Pankibai, Smt. Pankubai and Smt. Anchibai from the offence under Section 306 IPC. 2. This Court vide order dated 30.11.1992 granted leave to appeal only against the accused-respondent Tulsi Ram. For rest of the accused-respondents i.e. No. 2 to 7 their Leave to Appeal was refused. 3. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and learned counsel for the accused-respondents. Perused the material available on record. 4. In brief, facts of the case are that on 28.06.1987 complainant Shankar Lal filed a complaint (Ex.-P1) before the SHO, Police Station Shivganj, District-Sirohi. On the basis of this said report, CR No. 62/1987 was registered at the Police Station Shivganj. After completing investigation, police filed the charge-sheet against the accused-respondents. 5. After hearing the charge arguments, learned Sessions Court, Sirohi framed the charges for the offence under Section 306 IPC against all the accused persons who denied the same and claimed trial. 6. During the trial prosecution examined witnesses namely Suraj Bai (PW-1), Ms. Ratan (PW-2), Phoolchand (PW- 3), Shankar Lal (PW-4), Dunga Ram (PW-5), Mohanram (PW-6), Vajingram (PW-7), Babulal (PW-8), Dr. Surya Prakash Purohit (PW-9), Govind Lal (PW-10), Yakub (PW-11), Dharm Singh (PW- 12), Ramesh Kumar (PW-13), Natvar Lal (PW-14), Kushal Singh (PW-15) & Laxman Singh (PW-16). 7. The learned trial court recorded the statements of all accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On 07.10.1991. In their defence, accused persons got examined Himmatmal. 8. After hearing arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, learned trial Court acquitted all the accused-respondents. 9. Against this aforesaid judgment of acquittal, the prosecution preferred the instant appeal against all the accused persons before this Court. 10. According to the prosecution, the basic reason for committing suicide by the Jeevraj was misbehave with the neighbour Ms. Ratan by Tulsiram. Statement of Ms. Ratan was recorded as PW-2. 9. Against this aforesaid judgment of acquittal, the prosecution preferred the instant appeal against all the accused persons before this Court. 10. According to the prosecution, the basic reason for committing suicide by the Jeevraj was misbehave with the neighbour Ms. Ratan by Tulsiram. Statement of Ms. Ratan was recorded as PW-2. She in her statement stated that on the date of incident when she was in Kitchen and preparing food about 12.00 in noon, accused-respondent Tulsi Ram entered in their Kitchen and snatched her shirt from the back side due to which her shirt was torn and accused Tulsi Ram caused injury on her back with his nails, blood also appeared from this injury. When she (Ratan) shouted and ran away outside from the Kitchen accused- respondent Tulsi Ram ran away from the spot. 11. In support of Ratan's statement, her torn shirt was not produced before the court even the Investigation Officer did not seize her shirt. As per the statement of Ms. Ratan (PW-2) injury was caused on her back and blood appeared there but no injury report is on record in support of her statement to prove the same. So in the opinion of this court there is no evidence trustworthy with regard to the statement of Ms. Ratan. 12. According to prosecution case, when Ratan's father Jeev Raj returned at home, narrated him all the incident and Jeev Raj went to Tulsi Ram for making complaint. 13. In support of the charge against the accused Tulsi Ram, prosecution produced "Chaupaniya" and two post cards (Ex.-P4 & P5) before the Court. 14. I have perused all the facts mentioned in the Fard of Chaupaniya and in the aforesaid two post cards, prima-facie it is most unreliable that when a person is going to commit suicide, he will mention all these facts on a paper and write any post card to some body about this fact. Besides this the handwriting in the "Chaupaniya" (Ex.-P2) and Post cards (Ex.-P4 & P5) can be proved that it is of deceased Jeev Raj Singh. 15. On the post cards (Ex.-P4 & P5) the date on which the said post cards were written, posted and dropped for post is not mentioned. 16. Due to all above reasons, these documents does not help the prosecution in establishing its case. 15. On the post cards (Ex.-P4 & P5) the date on which the said post cards were written, posted and dropped for post is not mentioned. 16. Due to all above reasons, these documents does not help the prosecution in establishing its case. Even the most important thing for these documents are that they were in hand-writing of Jeev Raj which if possible then the fact that Jeev Raj was a literate person can be proved. But there is no evidence on record to prove the said fact that Jeev Raj was literate person and he was able to write a language in Hindi in his own hand-writing. So in the absence of above evidences, documents Ex.-P2 and post cards Ex.-P4 & P5 does not help prosecution. 17. During the course of arguments, learned Public Prosecutor stressed on the statement of Shankar (PW-4) who is the brother of deceased Jeev Raj. He in his statement only stated that on 24.06.1987 Phoolchand came to his house and told him that house of Jeev Raj was closed from inside and nobody give response on calling him then he entered into house of Jeev Raj through the house of Himmatmal where he saw that Jeev Raj was lying dead in the house. Except this statement nothing else was stated by Shankar (PW-4). 18. So in the opinion of this court, statement of Shankar does not create any kind of suspicion against the accused Tulsi Ram for commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. 19. So far as the statement of Dungaram (PW-5) is concerned, he is the father of deceased Jeevraj. He in his statement stated that Jeev Raj was living separately from last 20 Years, he also narrated the facts which are similar in the version of PW-2 Ratan. Nothing different came in his statement. So in the opinion of this court, statement of Dungaram does not support the prosecution case regarding commissioning of offence by the accused- respondent Tulsi Ram. 20. During the course of arguments, learned Public Prosecutor submits that at Page No. 14 in the judgment passed by the learned trial court, the conclusion is supported by the evidence but after perusing the facts mentioned on the Page No. 14 of the judgment, nothing is there in support of charge levelled against the accused-respondent Tulsi Ram. 20. During the course of arguments, learned Public Prosecutor submits that at Page No. 14 in the judgment passed by the learned trial court, the conclusion is supported by the evidence but after perusing the facts mentioned on the Page No. 14 of the judgment, nothing is there in support of charge levelled against the accused-respondent Tulsi Ram. Except all above, no fact or evidence is produced before this Court, in support of this appeal. 21. Hence, after perusing all above evidence, this court is of the opinion that the instant appeal has no force and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the appeal qua accused-respondent Tulsi Ram is dismissed and the judgment passed by the learned trial court dated 21.01.1992 is confirmed.