Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1881 (RAJ)

Radhey Shyam v. State of Rajasthan

2018-09-10

NIRMALJIT KAUR, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant Radhey Shyam @ Raju against the judgment dated 31.03.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.09/2008 by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on a complaint being filed on 16.04.2007 by Trilok Chand S/o Likhma Ram to the effect that on 27.03.2007 Subhash who is the resident of their Ward had a fight with Daulat Ram, Mukesh etc., a case was filed in the Police Station and Pyare Lal was a witness in that case. For this reason, Budh Ram, the brother of Daulat Ram was keeping enmity with Pyare Lal and also threatened Pyare Lal to kill him. On that day at around 9.00 PM, his brother Pyare Lal along with his niece Seema went to Ambedkar Chowk for having sugarcane juice. Suddenly Budh Ram S/o Dungar Ram, Sharman S/o Birbal Ram, R/o Ward No.19 and Radhey Shyam S/o Randheer attacked Pyare Lal. Budh Ram and Sharman caught hold of the hands of Pyare Lal and Radhe Shyam gave stab wounds with a knife and because of this Pyare Lal fell on the ground. He was immediately taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. On this complaint a formal FIR was lodged and the police conducted investigation. 3. After the investigation police filed a challan under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant Radhey Shyam. 4. Learned Trial Court framed charge against the accused-appellant Radhey Shyam for the offence under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of Pyare Lal and the same was read over and explained to him but he denied the charge and sought for trial in the matter. 5. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and 43 documents were exhibited. 6. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and he was confronted with the evidence adduced during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he is innocent, he was brought from the bye-pass after alighting from the car, they brought him to the Police Station and took his signatures on the blank papers. 7. 6. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and he was confronted with the evidence adduced during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he is innocent, he was brought from the bye-pass after alighting from the car, they brought him to the Police Station and took his signatures on the blank papers. 7. Learned trial Court after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration the statement of witnesses and after going through the same, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 31.03.2009. 8. For appreciating the facts in detail, we have gone through the statements recorded during the trial along with documents produced and exhibited before the trial Court. 9. PW-11 Seema is the eye-witness of the prosecution has stated in her statement before the Court that at around 8:30-9:00 PM she along with her Uncle deceased Pyare Lal went to the old Bus Stand near the black statue for having sugarcane juice. She and her uncle Pyare Lal had taken the juice and thereafter sat in front of the hotel for watching T.V. In the meantime Shrawan and Budh Ram came and took her uncle on one side of the hotel where Shrawan and Budh Ram caught hold of the hands of her uncle and Radhey Shyam gave knife blows. She further stated that accused Radhey shyam was present in the Court. Due to stabbing with knife, her uncle fell on the ground and the blood was oozing out at the place where her uncle was lying. She screamed, due to which lot of people gathered at the spot. On watching the crowd, her uncle Trilok Chand also reached at the spot and thereafter the accused persons ran away from the spot. Her uncle Pyare Lal was taken to hospital by an auto. She was frightened and went home. She further stated that there was no enmity between her uncle and the accused persons but her uncle has deposed as a witness in an incident of quarrel which took place between the brothers of Budh Ram and Shravan and, therefore, Budh Ram etc. have given threatening her Uncle to kill him and for this reason, her uncle has been killed. Her detailed cross examination was also done but nothing in contradiction of her statement has come on record. 10. have given threatening her Uncle to kill him and for this reason, her uncle has been killed. Her detailed cross examination was also done but nothing in contradiction of her statement has come on record. 10. PW-12 Trilok Chand who is the brother of deceased Pyare Lal has stated in his statement that at around 8:30-8:45 PM he went to Brij Lal Saini's Shop, situated at Ambedkar Chowk, Old Bus Stand for getting a Bundle of Biri and matchstick and on hearing the screams of Seema went to the spot where lot of people had gathered and saw that Budh Ram and Sharavan had caught hold of the two hands of Pyare Lal and Radhey Shyam was giving knife blows below the chest of Pyare Lal. He saw the incident of stabbing from a slight distance. Thereafter Radhey Shyam and two other persons ran away from the spot and while Pyare Lal was struggling and was lying in a pool of blood, he was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. He further stated that he knew Radhey Shyam who was present in the Court. He lodged the complaint and has has also attested the memo of dead body Ex.P- 22, inquest memo of dead body Ex.P-23, dead body handing over memo Ex.P-25, site plan Ex.P-20, seizure memo of blood stained concrete Ex.P-21, arrest memo of accused Radhey Shyam Ex.P- 26, recovery memo Ex.P-27 and the recovery memo of knife Ex.P- 30. 11. PW-10 Vipin Sharma, Dy. SP who is the Investigating Officer in the present case has stated in his statement that on 16.04.2007 while he was posted as Dy. S.P. at Nohar, District Hanumangarh, conducted the investigation in the present case and during the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses, prepared the arrest memo of the accused, seizure memo etc. He conducted the investigation as per rules and has undertaken the entire exercise of collection of samples, sending it to Forensic Science Laboratory etc. In his cross examination he deposed that according to him, no case against Budh Ram and Sharavan was made out therefore challan was not filed against these persons. 12. PW-3 Dr. Manoj Arora has stated in his statement that on 16.04.2007 while he was posted as Medical Officer, he conducted autopsy of the dead body of deceased Pyare Lal. In his cross examination he deposed that according to him, no case against Budh Ram and Sharavan was made out therefore challan was not filed against these persons. 12. PW-3 Dr. Manoj Arora has stated in his statement that on 16.04.2007 while he was posted as Medical Officer, he conducted autopsy of the dead body of deceased Pyare Lal. He further stated that there were seven injuries on the body of the deceased which were of penetration/incised wound of different dimensions. According to him the cause of death was excessive bleeding because of the stab injuries of the heart which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. 13. PW-1 Ramanand, PW-2 Rajkaran, PW-5 Jogendra @ Kalu Ram, PW-6 Bheem Singh and PW-7 Vijay Kumar are the witnesses who are stated to have been present on the date of incident but they have not supported the story of the prosecution, therefore, they have been declared hostile. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record of the trial Court. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no enmity between the appellant Radhey Shyam and the deceased Pyare Lal. Also there is no motive to kill the deceased Pyare Lal. The accused-appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no reliable eye-witness to the incident, nor there is any clinching evidence to prove the offence alleged against the appellant as most of the witnesses have turned hostile. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. There are material contradictions in the statements recorded by the prosecution. The chain of circumstances is not complete and there is no direct evidence in the matter. The prosecution has miserably failed to connect the evidence adduced which could reach to the only conclusion that the appellant Radhey Shyam has killed the deceased Pyare Lal. He further submits that two other persons namely Shravan and Budh Ram have been let off by the prosecution itself, although it has come in the evidence that these two persons have caught hold of the hands of the deceased Pyare Lal. The present appellant should also be given benefit of acquittal on the same lines as has been extended to aforesaid two persons namely Shravan and Budh Ram. The present appellant should also be given benefit of acquittal on the same lines as has been extended to aforesaid two persons namely Shravan and Budh Ram. He further submits that PW-1 Ramanand, PW-2 Raj Kumar, PW-5 Jogendra @ Kalu Ram, PW-6 Bhim Singh and PW-7 Vijay Kumar who were the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and thus, have been declared hostile. 16. Learned counsel further argued that two witnesses namely Seema (PW-11) and Trilok Chand (PW-12) are close relatives of the deceased Pyare Lal and, therefore, no credence should be given to them as they are interested witnesses and they have falsely implicated the present appellant to settle the scores. 17. Learned counsel therefore, prays that appeal of the accusedappellant may be allowed and the judgment impugned passed by the learned trial Court may be quashed and set aside. 18. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment under challenge and vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved the offence alleged against the present appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The statement recorded during the trial corroborates the fact of the appellant having murdered Pyare Lal and besides this there is no contradiction in the statement of PW-11 Seema and PW-12 Trilok who are the eyewitnesses to the incident. 19. He further argues that the medical evidence also corroborates the prosecution case and the knife which was used for stabbing Pyare Lal was recovered on the information given by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the said information has been exhibited as Ex.P-29. On the basis of which the recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. knife was effected and the same is Exhibited as Ex.P-30 and the witness of the recovery i.e. Trilok Chand and Moti Ram have also attested the same. Out of which Moti Ram was not produced and examined before the trial Court but Trilok Chand (PW-12) has fortified the recovery of knife. He further submits that recovered blood stained Trouser (pant) and Shirt of the accused-appellant were also sent to Forensic Science Laboratory with the control samples recovered from the spot. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.34 establishes the presence of the blood stains of human origin on the Trouser and Shirt of the appellant accused. 20. He further submits that recovered blood stained Trouser (pant) and Shirt of the accused-appellant were also sent to Forensic Science Laboratory with the control samples recovered from the spot. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.34 establishes the presence of the blood stains of human origin on the Trouser and Shirt of the appellant accused. 20. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that motive is also well established in the present case as Pyare Lal has deposed against Budh Ram and, therefore, the appellant Radhey Shyam along with Budh Ram and Shravan @ Sharman were keeping a hostile attitude against the deceased Pyare Lal. He further submits that the Postmortem report also corroborates with the injuries sustained by the deceased and the same has also been corroborated with the statements of eye-witnesses i.e. PW-11 Seema and PW-12 Trilok Chand. 21. He therefore submits that judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court does not require any interference by this Court as the prosecution has been able to prove the offence committed by the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the same is required to be upheld. 22. We have considered the rival submissions made at bar and have minutely gone through the record of the trial Court. 23. The injuries of stab wound sustained by the deceased Pyare Lal was witnessed by PW-11 Seema who was present on the spot at the time of incident. No doubt, she is a close relative but then she is the most named witness. She has stated in her testimony about every minute details of the incident which actually took place. The testimony of this witness cannot be ignored as even in her cross-examination she has consistently maintained her version without any deviation. Her statement also get fortified, as on the same lines PW-12 Trilok Chand has stated that it was accused Radhey Shyam who had given stab wound injuries to deceased Pyare Lal, who after the incident was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. PW-12, the attesting witness of recovery of knife and other memos prepared by the Investigating Officer clearly establish the fact that weapon of offence i.e. blood stained knife which was used in the present case was recovered in his presence at the instance of information given by accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act establishing and corroborating the prosecution story. 24. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant though tried to impress upon us that other independent witnesses have not supported the story of the prosecution will not in our opinion dismantle the case of the prosecution because PW-11 Seema and PW-12 Trilok Chand who are eye-witnesses have deposed very clearly indicating the present appellant in the present incident duly getting corroboration from the recoveries made and the medical evidence. The testimonies of PW-11 and PW-12 are clinching evidence in the present case as both of them have stated that Radhey Shyam has given stab blows to the deceased Pyare Lal causing multiple injuries which gets corroborated from the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report and also with the statement of Dr. Manoj Arora recorded before the Court as PW-3. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of these two witnesses. 25. It is also brought on record that the appellant along with other two persons namely Shravan @ Sharman and Budh Ram threatened the deceased Pyare Lal to kill him as he has deposed against Budh Ram in a criminal case, therefore, this can safely be presumed as motive against the present appellant. We also note that the Shravan and Budh Ram have been let off by the police without there being any justifiable reason although, it has come in the statements that they caught hold of the hands of the deceased Pyare Lal. In any case letting off Budh Ram and Shravan by the police cannot be a ground to acquit the present appellant Radhey Shyam as the evidence adduced during the course of trial completely indicts and proves the charge levelled against the appellant Radhey Shyam for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 26. In view of whatever stated above, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by learned trial Court while convicting the accused-appellant Radhey Shyam vide order dated 31.03.2009 of the charge levelled against him for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 27. Resultantly, the present appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.