Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1724 (RAJ)

Ram Manohar v. State of Rajasthan

2018-08-14

DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI, MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI

body2018
JUDGMENT Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - This criminal appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.1.2014, passed by the Additional District Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No.59/2011, convicting the accused-appellant for offence under sections 302 and 201 IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo three months' imprisonment for offence under section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. An FIR was lodged on 30.5.2011 by one Dalchand son of Sualal stating that his daughter Jyoti was married to accused appellant- Ram Manohar eight years back. She was harassed for dowry and attempts were made to kill her. He paid Rs.15,000/- to her husband and father-in-law to satisfy them yet his daughter was tortured by them. On 22.5.2011, he received a telephone call from Jyoti alleging beating and pouring kerosene by her husband. After some time, he received another telephone call from the landlady corroborating the allegations made by his daughter-Jyoti. Thereafter, Jyoti and her husband went out on the motorcycle. Her skeleton was found on 30.5.2011 at the instance of the accused appellant. 3. After investigation, challan was filed by the police against the accused appellant for offence under sections 302 and 201 IPC. After framing of charges for the said offence, prosecution produced 15 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents in the trial. The accused appellant produced one witness in defence apart from 8 documents. 4. The allegation for commission of offence under section 302 and 201 IPC was found proved by the trial court thus appellant was convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences. 5. Learned counsel for accused appellant submits that no evidence exist to connect the appellant with the offence under sections 302 and 201 IPC. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstances does not exist to convict the appellant for the offence. The prosecution failed to prove its case. The evidence produced by it is having contradictions thus should not have been relied by the trial court. In fact, the allegations against the appellant could not be proved beyond doubt yet trial court convicted the appellant. 6. The chain of circumstances does not exist to convict the appellant for the offence. The prosecution failed to prove its case. The evidence produced by it is having contradictions thus should not have been relied by the trial court. In fact, the allegations against the appellant could not be proved beyond doubt yet trial court convicted the appellant. 6. The statement of PW-l-Durga Singh has been referred wherein he has shown recovery of the skeleton of deceased-Jyoti before lodging FIR. In view of the above, recovery of skeleton of deceased at the instance of appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act became false, rather, prosecution has created evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. 7. In the same manner, reference of statement of PW-9- Smt Seema Sharma and pW-10-Mukesh Kumar Sharma has been given to show self contradiction therein. In the cross examination, they admitted that deceased Jyoti left the house on 22.5.2011 at her own yet trial court took it to be a case of last seen evidence with the appellant. The case of last seen was not made out but, ignoring the cross examination of PW-9 and PW-10, learned trial court accepted the story of the prosecution. 8. It is also stated that even if the statement of PW-2- Dalchand and PW-7-Vidya Devi, father and mother of the deceased-Jyoti are taken into consideration, they have admitted that deceased was with them and left the house almost seven days prior to recovery of skeleton of the deceased. The date of it comes to be 23.5.2011. In view of the above, deceased was with them and not with the appellant on 22.5.2011. In view of the above also, a case of last seen is not made out to connect the appellant with the crime. The statement of PW-2 and PW-7 have been ignored by the trial court. The deceased was residing with her parents till last and left the house thereupon at her own. In view of the above, no one had seen the deceased with the appellant before the incident. 9. A reference of statement of PW-2-Dalchand has been given. It is to show that the case taken by the prosecution could not be proved, rather, statements of witnesses are having contradictions thus should not have been relied. In view of the above, no one had seen the deceased with the appellant before the incident. 9. A reference of statement of PW-2-Dalchand has been given. It is to show that the case taken by the prosecution could not be proved, rather, statements of witnesses are having contradictions thus should not have been relied. In view of the above, conviction of the appellant for the offence under sections 302 and 201 IPC is without proof of the allegations beyond doubt thus appellant may be acquitted of the offence. The prayer is made to set aside order of learned trial court and to acquit the appellant. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor so as learned counsel for complainant have opposed the appeal. It is stated that the prosecution could prove its case beyond doubt. The evidence exist to connect the appellant with the offence under sections 302 and 201 IPC. The statements of PW-9-Smt Seema Sharma and PW-13- Bal Krishna Sharma show that prior to the incident, the appellant and the deceased fought with each other in the rented premises. PW-9 - Smt Seema Sharma (landlady) tried to settle the dispute. She informed about the quarrel to deceased's father. In the meanwhile, appellant's father and brother came there. After some time, appellant took the deceased on motorcycle and, at the same time, appellant's father and brother went out on another motorcycle. After that, deceased was never seen by them thus evidence has come about last seen of the appellant with the deceased. 11. Reference of statement of PW-11-Mukesh Kumar Sharma has been given. He has corroborated the statement of PW-9-Smt Seema Sharma. The witness stated about the quarrel between the appellant and the deceased wife. PW-9-Smt Seema Sharma further stated that quarrel had gone to the extent of pouring kerosene oil by the appellant on himself. It was further stated that the appellant was not available for many days subsequent to 22.5.2011. 12. The railway ticket of the appellant for Bangalore was recovered at his instance apart from recovery of the skeleton of deceased Jyoti under section 27 of the Evidence Act. In view of the above, prosecution could prove not only the evidence of last seen of the appellant with the deceased Jyoti but his motive for causing the offence. He disclosed and identified the place of occurrence and the skeleton. 13. In view of the above, prosecution could prove not only the evidence of last seen of the appellant with the deceased Jyoti but his motive for causing the offence. He disclosed and identified the place of occurrence and the skeleton. 13. Reference of statement of PW-1-Durga Singh has also been given. It has been stated by learned counsel for accused appellant that skeleton was found prior to FIR. Learned PP submitted that the skeleton was not recovered prior to lodging of the FIR, rather, it was at the instance of the appellant. Learned counsel for appellant, however, projected recovery of skeleton by the police prior to lodging of FIR. Nobody was aware about the skeleton in a pit thus question of its recovery by the police without any information is not a correct interpretation of the statement of the witness. Learned counsel for appellant has read only one part of the statement of PW-1-Durga Singh, whereas, the statement has to be read in totality. 14. A reference of statement of PW-2-Dalchand and PW-7- Vidya Devi has also been given where they have also supported the prosecution case. Their cross examination has been referred to show that deceased was with them seven days prior to recovery of skeleton. In the chief, witnesses have given complete story. It has been stated that the deceased was with the appellant and they had received a telephone call not only from the deceased but the landlord about the quarrel between them. It was on 22.5.2011. The deceased and the appellant thereupon went out on motorcycle and were not available for days together. 15. It is also stated that appellant could not produce defence against the evidence submitted by the prosecution to prove the charge. The appellant failed to submit evidence to show his availability till 30.5.2011. In view of the above, a case is not made out for causing interference in the order passed by learned trial court. The prayer is to dismiss the appeal. 16. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 17. The material on record shows that two missing reports about deceased Jyoti were registered prior to lodging of the FIR and recovery of her skeleton. One was registered at the instance of deceased's father and another at the instance of appellant's father. 16. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 17. The material on record shows that two missing reports about deceased Jyoti were registered prior to lodging of the FIR and recovery of her skeleton. One was registered at the instance of deceased's father and another at the instance of appellant's father. The missing report submitted by the appellant's father has been exhibited but he was not produced in the evidence either by the prosecution or in defence. The missing report shows that deceased was not available after 22.5.2011. The appellant has come with the story that deceased was with her parents seven days prior to recovery of the skeleton. 18. The statement of PW-9-Smt- Seema Sharma shows that the deceased was residing with the appellant. She had seen the deceased with the appellant lastly on 22.5.2011 She has stated about their quarrel on 22.5.2011 and thereafter went out on a motorcycle. The facts available on record further show that the deceased as well as the appellant were found missing since 22.5.2011. The appellant could not bring the defence against prosecution story to show his availability after 22.5.2011 at any other place. The prosecution, rather, produced railway ticket of Bangalore. It was recovered at the instance of the appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is to prove that immediately after committing offence, appellant went to Bangalore and came back only on 30.5.2011. 19. Since it is a case of circumstantial evicence, chain is required to be seen to prove the case. Two facts relevant to it have been given above i.e. the evidence of last seen as well as non-availability of the appellant after 22.5.2011 till 30.5.2011. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, referred the cross examination of PW-9 - Smt Seema Sharma to demolish the evidence of last seen but it is corroborated by other evidence which includes the statement of PW-2, PW-9 and PW-13 thus argument cannot be accepted. 20. It is also a fact that the skeleton of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act. He had identified the place where dead body of the deceased was suppressed. It was in a pit. The aforesaid is again a circumstance to connect the appellant with crime. 20. It is also a fact that the skeleton of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act. He had identified the place where dead body of the deceased was suppressed. It was in a pit. The aforesaid is again a circumstance to connect the appellant with crime. It is, however, submitted that as per the statement of PW-1, the skeleton was recovered before lodging of FIR. The argument aforesaid has been made in ignorance of the statement of other witness and the recovery of the body on an information under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel for appellant has relied on the part of the statement of PW-1 - Durga Singh leaving the other material part. 21. The facts available on record further show that relations of the appellant-husband with deceased-wife were not cordial. As per statements of PW-9-Smt Seema Sharma and PW-10-Mukesh Kumar Sharma, they fought even on 22.5.2011 though PW-10 was not available on the aforesaid day but it was conveyed to him by PW-9-Smt Seema Sharma. PW-9-Smt Seema Sharma and PW-13- Bal Krishna Sharma were at the residence and were witnesses to the quarrel took place between the two. Smt Seema Sharma even tried to settle the dispute and in the meanwhile appellant's father and brother also came. According to learned counsel for appellant he had poured kerosene on him. It can happen only when things aggravated. 22. Learned counsel for appellant has referred to the cross examination of PW-9-Smt Seema Sharma and PW-10-Mukesh Kumar Sharma. They have stated about loose character of the deceased Jyoti and that she left the house at her own. If the deceased left the house at her own then it should have been in the notice of the appellant so as to register missing report but it was lodged by his father on 27.5.2011. In fact, appellant himself was not available in between and no explanation has been given in the statement under section 313 CrPC. The evidence exist to connect the appellant with the crime. 23. The statements of other witnesses have also been considered by the trial court extensively before drawing conclusions. It has been considered by us also while dealing with rival arguments. If the statements of prosecution witnesses are seen in totality, we find no contradiction therein so as to disbelieve prosecution case. 23. The statements of other witnesses have also been considered by the trial court extensively before drawing conclusions. It has been considered by us also while dealing with rival arguments. If the statements of prosecution witnesses are seen in totality, we find no contradiction therein so as to disbelieve prosecution case. In view of the aforesaid, we are unable to accept the arguments raised by learned counsel for accused appellant. 24. Finding no error in the conclusions drawn by learned trial court, the appeal fails and is dismissed.