Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2228 (RAJ)

Arjun Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2017-10-24

RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment dated 04.06.2016, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore in Sessions Case No. 112/2011 (CIS No. 96/2014) whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 323 IPC with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Briefly, the facts in the matter are that a complaint was filed by one Chhoga Ram on 18.03.2011 stating therein that his uncle's daughter Savita was married to the accused Arjun about one year ago. After the marriage, Savita's husband Arjun and his elder brother Leela Ram were giving beatings and Savita was being tortured mentally and physically. The uncle of the complainant Bhana had passed away 7-8 months ago, so whenever deceased Savita came to her parental house, she would complain about ill treatment being meted out to her. The ill treatment which was being meted out to Savita was also brought into the notice of in laws as well as other reputed persons of the society, but, there was no change in the attitude of accused Arjun. On 17.03.2011 when accused Arjun came to take Savita, his aunti Dadami told accused Arjun that he may take Savita along but no beatings should be given to her, Arjun got annoyed and gave beatings to his auntie Dadami and thereafter took away Savita to Padampura. When the complainant went to his uncle's Dhani (hamlet), his aunti Dadami narrated the entire incident and shown the injury caused to her by Arjun Ram. The complainant counselled her and requested her to refrain from lodging any kind of report. Thereafter at around 10.00 PM, the complainant received a phone call on his mobile phone that his cousin sister Savita has been murdered and the body is lying on the boarder of Pahadpura. Thereafter, he along with other persons reached the spot and saw the body of Savita having suffered injury at her head, eyes having been tied up with cloth and there was a muffler in her neck. Thereafter, he along with other persons reached the spot and saw the body of Savita having suffered injury at her head, eyes having been tied up with cloth and there was a muffler in her neck. On this complaint, an FIR bearing No. 92/2011 was registered for the offences under Sections 323, 304B and 498A IPC at Police Station Sanchore and the same was submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 19.03.2011. 3. Thereafter, the investigation was completed by the police and a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 302 and 323 I.P.C was filed. 4. Learned trial Court framed charges against the accused Arjun for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for committing murder of his wife Savita and for the offence under Section 323 IPC for giving beatings to his mother-in-law Dadami. The accused denied the same and preferred trial in the matter. During the trial 19 prosecution witnesses were examined on prosecution side and 34 documents were exhibited. 5. Thereafter, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 1973 and was confronted with the evidence adduced during trial to which he denied and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. He has not given any beatings to his wife and has not killed her. He has never asked for any dowry nor he has given any beatings to his mother-in-law, Dadami. He further deposed that all the witnesses belong to the same family and, therefore, they are giving false evidence for the reason that the daughter of his brother is engaged to his brother-in-law and because their marriage was not being solemnised, his mother-in-law Dadami has foisted this false case against him. Two witnesses were produced and examined in his defence as DW-1 and DW-2. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on both the sides and after taking into consideration the statements of witnesses and the documents exhibited, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 04.06.2016. To appreciate the facts in details, a close look of the statements recorded during trial were examined by us. 6. PW-3 Chhoga Ram who has filed a complaint, submitted that Savita was his cousin sister, married about one year prior to the date of incident. For 2-3 months everything was fine but thereafter Savita was given beatings and was tortured mentally and physically. 6. PW-3 Chhoga Ram who has filed a complaint, submitted that Savita was his cousin sister, married about one year prior to the date of incident. For 2-3 months everything was fine but thereafter Savita was given beatings and was tortured mentally and physically. All these things were being told to them, whenever their cousin Savita came to their house. The matter was taken up with the in-laws of Savita along with other brothers, but, in vain. The accused Arjun Ram continued to torture Savita and demanded for money and dowry. On 17.03.2011 Arjun came to his aunties Dhani and said to his auntie Dadami that she must give Rs. 5,000/- and he will take Savita with him but on being resisted by Dadami gave beatings to his aunti Dadami and took away Savita by force. The entire incident was narrated by his anuti Dadami when he returned home in the evening. On the same evening at around 10 O Clock, he received a call that his cousin sister has been murdered and the dead body is lying on the boarder of Pahadpura. After having received this information, they went to the spot and saw the dead body of Savita having certain injuries on her head, the eyes were tied with a strip of cloth and one muffler was tied in her neck. On this, a report was submitted by him. PW-4 Ratna Ram who is uncle of deceased Savita, also submitted that after the marriage of Savita, she was being tortured for not giving adequate dowry and on the date of incident, Arjun, came to Dhani of Bhana to take Savita with him. He gave beatings to Dadami and took away Savita along with him and thereafter at around 10:00 PM, Chhoga Ram (PW-3) received a phone call from the Police Station informing that Savita has been murdered. PW-7 Babu Ram submitted that Savita was his cousin sister married to Arjun Ram and after some time of marriage, Arjun Ram demanded Rs. 5,000/- and he tortured and gave bearings to Savita for not fulfilling his demand. After the incident, Chhoga Ram informed him about the death of Savita. Thereafter, they went to the spot of incident. The police prepared Site Plan Ex.P-11 which was attested by him. He also attested memo of dead body (Ex.P-6) and the handing over memo (Ex.P-7). 5,000/- and he tortured and gave bearings to Savita for not fulfilling his demand. After the incident, Chhoga Ram informed him about the death of Savita. Thereafter, they went to the spot of incident. The police prepared Site Plan Ex.P-11 which was attested by him. He also attested memo of dead body (Ex.P-6) and the handing over memo (Ex.P-7). He attested Ex.P-8 which is the sample of blood stained soil collected from the spot. The cloth which was tied on the eyes of the dead body of Savita is Ex.P-9 and one Orna Polka and Lahanga as Ex.P-10. PW-12 Smt. Dadami is the mother of deceased Savita, submitted that Arjun Ram was married to Savita for about 3 years ago and they have given clothes, utensils and ornaments in the marriage. After the marriage, Savita remained with Arjun Ram at his house. After some time of marriage, Arjun started giving beatings and was sending Savita to her house for bringing money and he was always torturing Savita that in dowry, adequate money was not given and, therefore, he was demanding Rs. 5,000/-. Savita was counselled that everything will fall in place with the passage of time but nothing changed. On the date of incident Savita came to her at around 12:00-1:00 PM and told her for giving Rs. 5,000/- but when she refused, accused Arjun Ram came to her house and started beating Savita. When she intervened, she was also given beatings by Arjun Ram. Arjun stated that if Rs. 5,000/- is not paid to him, he will kill Savita. When the counselling failed, Arjun Ram took away Savita with him and murdered her. PW-13 Smt. Maiti who is the cousin sister of deceased Savita stated that adequate dowry was given in the marriage of Savita. Savita was kept well for 2-3 months, thereafter Arjun started giving beatings and tortured her for bringing Rs. 5,000/- from her mother. On the day of incident at around 3:00 PM, Arjun came to their house and started beating to Savita and her mother. In the process of intervening, Dadami received injuries and while going away Arjun was telling that in the evening, he will kill Savita. 5,000/- from her mother. On the day of incident at around 3:00 PM, Arjun came to their house and started beating to Savita and her mother. In the process of intervening, Dadami received injuries and while going away Arjun was telling that in the evening, he will kill Savita. PW-14 Amba Ram who is resident of Pahadpura and is a mechanic, stated that on 17.03.2011 after repairing the Tractor while he was going back to his Dhani, he met Arjun Ram at around 7:00-8:00 PM on the way and when he asked Arjun Ram as to where is he going, Arjun replied that he is going to market and after saying Ram Ram, he stated last Ram Ram. When he asked what has happened, Arjun Ram replied that he has killed his wife and he will come to know of the same in the morning. On the next day when police came, he came to know that Arjun Ram has killed his wife. PW-18 Narayan Lal who is the SHO, Police Station Sanchore, submitted that on 17.03.2011, accused Arjun Ram came to Police Station and verbally informed that he has killed his wife whose dead body is lying on the bank of canal, Pahadpura. On this information, he along with accused Arjun Ram and other police party went to the spot where they saw that a dead body was lying, to which Arjun Ram said that the same is of his wife Savita. Because of night time, no proceedings were undertaken and after securing the place of incident, he returned and on 18.03.2011 after informing the relatives, the site was inspected and the matter was investigated by him and the recoveries were also made from the spot. PW-1 Kishanlal, police Constable who was working at Police Station Sanchore is the attesting witness of the arrest memo (Ex.P-1) as well as recovery memo (Ex.P-2). PW-2 Shankara Ram is the attesting witness of the Panchnama of dead body Ex.P-3. He submitted that Savita was his cousin sister who was married to the accused Arjun Ram one year ago. After 4-5 months of the marriage, her husband started giving beatings to Savita for not bringing money from her parents and whenever Savita used to come their house, she would complain about the same to her brothers. He submitted that Savita was his cousin sister who was married to the accused Arjun Ram one year ago. After 4-5 months of the marriage, her husband started giving beatings to Savita for not bringing money from her parents and whenever Savita used to come their house, she would complain about the same to her brothers. On this he along with his brothers complained and counselled Arjun Ram but there was no change in the attitude. He further submitted that accused Arjun Ram came to their house for taking away Savita and thereafter, after strangulating her with the muffler murdered her. PW-15 Parasa Ram is the cousin brother of the deceased Savita. He has submitted almost on the same lines as submitted by Chhoga Ram (PW-3) and Babu Ram (PW-7). PW-5 Dr. Vibha Ram Choudhary who was working as Medical Officer at Sanchore and who undertook the postmortem, stated that there were two lacerated wound on the head of deceased. The tongue was protruded out with swelling and was squeezed between the teeth, there was abrasion on the nose, the wind pipe (trachea) had swelling. All the injuries were given prior to the death. There were ligature marks of 3-4 cm on the neck of the deceased given prior to her death. The cause of death is asphyxia due to strangulation. There was no fracture in the bone of neck. PW-16 Dr. Babu Lal Vishnoi who was also working as Medical Officer who examined the injured Dadami, submitted that she has suffered two injuries: one lacerated wound 3 x 2 x 1/2 cm on the right side of the head and 3 x 2 cm Nilagu on the left shoulder. All the injuries are simple in nature. He further submitted that after the postmortem of dead body of Savita, the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation. PW-17 Girdhar Singh who was Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sanchore has submitted that he has visited the spot of incident and had made certain recoveries from the spot and attested the same during the course of investigation. He has also submitted that there is no eye-witness in the matter regarding the murder of deceased Savita. PW-19 Mahendra Singh, who was working as police Constable, has received six packets of samples in the sealed cover from Ct. Bhopaldan. He has also submitted that there is no eye-witness in the matter regarding the murder of deceased Savita. PW-19 Mahendra Singh, who was working as police Constable, has received six packets of samples in the sealed cover from Ct. Bhopaldan. He prepared a Reference letter Ex.P-32 on behalf of Superintendent of Police, addressed to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jodhpur. PW-8 Ghanshyam who is photographer, submitted that he has clicked 14 photographs of the site (Ex.P-14 to P-27). PW-9 Chandra Kishore is the Malkhana In-charge who has received the seized articles in sealed cover and has sent the same to Forensic Science Laboratory. PW-10 Kasu Ram submitted that he is unaware of the facts about the death of wife of Arjun, therefore, he was declared hostile. PW-11 Constable Lal Dan has taken the samples to Forensic Science Laboratory. DW-1 Ganesh Ram submitted that Arjun has never troubled Savita nor tortured her and because the daughter of Arjun's brother was not being married to the brother in-law of Arjun they have lodged a false case against Arjun. This witness further stated that he has heard in the village that Savita was killed by Arjun. DW-2 Nagji submitted that he knows Arjun and Amba Ram but what is the enmity between Arjun and Amba Ram, he is not aware. He is also not aware about the residence of Amba Ram. He has never seen Arjun quarrelling with his wife. He further stated that he never heard from Savita that Arjun ever bothered or tortured her. He is not aware as to how the wife of Arjun died. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor in detail. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that present is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no eyewitness to the incident and, thus, the prosecution witnesses have miserably failed to prove the offence alleged against the appellant. He further submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated and there is material contradictions in the statements recorded during trial to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant. The appellant Arjun Ram is framed in the present case only on account of the reason that daughter of appellant's brother being not allowed to marry with the brother-in-law of the accused. Annoyed with the refusal to marry the son of PW-12 Dadami, the present appellant has been fixed in the present case. The appellant Arjun Ram is framed in the present case only on account of the reason that daughter of appellant's brother being not allowed to marry with the brother-in-law of the accused. Annoyed with the refusal to marry the son of PW-12 Dadami, the present appellant has been fixed in the present case. Learned counsel further contended that because the chain of circumstances is not being completed and there is no direct evidence in the matter, the confessional statement of the accused cannot form the basis for conviction in the present case. He further submitted that there is no question of demand of dowry, being raised by the appellant as in their caste there is no custom of giving any dowry during the marriage. PW-13 Smt. Maiti is a planted witness and her statement cannot be relied upon in the present case. The counsel for the appellant argued that all the witnesses are interested and related to the deceased and, therefore, it will not be safe to rely upon the same for the purpose of convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, while defending the judgment passed by learned trial Court, vehemently argued that the charges against the accused-appellant have been proved by the evidence produced on record. There is no deviation in the statements recorded as well as there is no material contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses produced during trial. The conclusion reached by the learned trial Court is not liable to be interfered with. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the statements recorded during trial were corroborated by the fact of recovery as well as the confessional statement given by the accused himself proving the offence alleged against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submitted that in all the statements it has come on record that deceased Savita was being given beatings, harassed and tortured by the accused Arjun Ram for the dowry and to bring money from her parents. When the demand of dowry was not made, on 17.03.2011 after giving beatings to the deceased Savita and Dadami, Savita was taken away forcefully by the accused Arjun Ram and, therefore, Arjun Ram was the only person who was lastly seen with the deceased Savita by Dadami (PW-12) and Smt. Maiti (PW-13) before her death on the same day. When the demand of dowry was not made, on 17.03.2011 after giving beatings to the deceased Savita and Dadami, Savita was taken away forcefully by the accused Arjun Ram and, therefore, Arjun Ram was the only person who was lastly seen with the deceased Savita by Dadami (PW-12) and Smt. Maiti (PW-13) before her death on the same day. He further submitted that there is no enmity of the accused Arjun Ram with Amba Ram (PW-14) who is independent witness who categorically mentioned that the accused has told him that he has killed his wife Savita. The recovery of the Pant (Trouser) and other recovered articles having blood stains, on the information of the accused, corroborates the statements recovered during trial. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that the injuries sustained by Dadami (PW-12) shows the presence of accused on 17.03.2011 at the house of Dadami, having been beaten by the accused, taking away his wife Savita after heated altercation, therefore, he submits that although it is a case of circumstantial evidence but the chain of events, the last seen evidence, the motive and the recovery of blood stained articles conclusively shows that the appellant was the only person who has committed the offence alleged against him and the same has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts by the prosecution. 10. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonu vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2017 SC 3441 has held that in a case of circumstantial evidence certain principles are to be followed which are as under: "1. The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be proved must be cogently or firmly established. 2. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 3. The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else. 4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable or explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with this innocence." 12. 4. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable or explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with this innocence." 12. Therefore, in the present case we find that in the categorical statements of PW-2 Shankara Ram, PW-3 Chhoga Ram, PW-4 Ratna Ram, PW-7 Babu Ram and PW-13 Smt. Maiti, it has been stated that Arjun Ram was harassing and torturing the deceased for not bringing adequate dowry and was demanding money. It has also been mentioned in these statements without any deviation that deceased Savita was also beaten on a number of occasions by the accused Arjun Ram. All these witnesses though are related to deceased Savita but there is no reason for us to disbelieve the testimony of these witnesses on the point of Savita being harassed for not bringing adequate dowry, as whenever Savita visited her parental house, she would complain of the maltreatment given to her by accused Arjun Ram. It has also been stated that these witnesses have also taken up the matter with the in-laws of deceased Savita as well as other reputed persons of the family and society. 13. On 17.03.2011, the accused visited the Dhani (hamlet) of PW-12 Dadami following his wife Savita and as per the statements of PW-12 Dadami and PW-13 Smt. Maiti, the presence of accused on 17.03.2011 at the house of PW-12 is established as during scuffle PW-12 Dadami has sustained two injuries which are clear from the injury report filed by the prosecution. In the statements of Dadami and Smt. Maiti, it has also been established that accused Arjun Ram came to the Dhani (house) of Dadami and after the demand of Rs. 5,000/- not being meted out, he forcefully took away Savita along with him and thereafter Savita was not seen by anybody before her death on the same evening. Therefore, there is no reason for us to disbelieve the evidence of PW-12 Dadami as the presence of both the persons i.e. accused Arjun Ram and deceased Savita at her house is absolutely normal as they are daughter and son-in-law of PW-12. Nothing on record has also come who could establish that Savita was seen on 17.03.2011 after they have departed from the house of PW-12. Nothing on record has also come who could establish that Savita was seen on 17.03.2011 after they have departed from the house of PW-12. The presence of PW-13 at the house of PW-12 cannot be doubted as PW-13 Smt. Maiti is cousin sister of deceased Savita. 14. PW-14 Amba Ram very categorically stated that when asked, accused Arjun replied that he has killed his wife Savita and he will come to know of the same in the morning. Amba Ram was having acquaintance with Arjun Ram but there was no enmity, as such, between the two. 15. Similarly PW-18 Narayan Lal has also submitted that accused came to the Police Station and submitted that he has killed his wife and thereafter they went to the place of incident where the dead body was lying. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the confessional statement made by the appellant before PW-14 and PW-18 Narayan Lal for the reason that firstly, there is no enmity between accused and this person and secondly, they have been corroborated by the other witnesses, medical evidence and the recovery of trouser of accused, cloths, muffler etc. 16. There is no material contradictions in the evidence recorded during the trial. 17. The statement of Dr. Vibha Ram Choudhary (PW-5) and Dr. Babu Lal Vishnoi (PW-16) shows the ligature marks on the body of deceased and the cause of death being asphyxia due to strangulation connecting the recovery of blood stained muffler with accused Arjun Ram. 18. Therefore, in our opinion the chain of circumstances is having been completed, corroborated by the confessional statements, the motive between killing and the factum of recovery conclusively goes to show that the offence alleged against the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, in view of above appreciation of evidence, we are unable to take a different view then the view taken by the learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 302 and 323 IPC. 19. 19. True it is, the present case is based on circumstantial evidence but in view of guiding principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has come on record having been proved beyond all reasonable doubts by the prosecution that accused Arjun Ram was the person who was harassing deceased Savita for dowry and on 17.03.2011 he went to the Dhani of PW-12 Dadami and after having demand of Rs. 5,000/- when the same was not fulfilled, he gave beatings to Dadami PW-12 and forcefully took away deceased Savita and after giving beatings, she was strangulated and thereafter, after stating the fact of having killed his wife to PW-14 Amba Ram, accused went to Police Station and informed PW-18 Narayan Lal about the same and thereafter went to the spot along with police party where the dead body was lying and when the recovery is being made at the instance of accused Arjun Ram, all these facts conclusively goes to show that the chain of events is complete and there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused Arjun Ram and none else. 20. In view of whatever stated above, we are of the view that the judgment dated 04.06.2016 is required to be upheld and the conviction recorded and sentence awarded is thus, maintained. Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby rejected.