Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2260 (RAJ)

Lal Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2018-12-06

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2018
JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, CJ. - Some cases baffle the Court, not because of their complex but on account of their simplicity. 2. Unfortunately, the Investigating Officer has not been examined in the instant case. The reason as per the prosecution is that on account of Inspector Surender Singh suffering fatal head injuries after he completed the investigation he went into a state of coma. 3. Process of criminal law was set into motion when on 22.11.2008 at 11.00 a.m. Naurang Lal P.W.-1, went to the Police Station, Bhanipura and gave a hand written report Exhibit-P1 informing therein that his sister Tulsi was married to the appellant and was blessed with two sons. The family was living together. The previous day i.e. 21.11.2008 at 8.00 p.m. he received information that appellant has murdered his son Subhash. On receiving the information he came to the village where his sister Tulsi resided. Tulsi informed him that she went to the field with her husband who parted company with her saying that he was going to attend an election rally. He came to the house where both sons were there. In the evening when she went to the house her son told her that their father had taken Subhash to the field with him. She went to the field and saw Subhash lying with blood oozing from his neck. She saw her husband sleeping at a little distance from where she lifted her son. She brought her son home. 4. Based on the information FIR Exhibit-P2 was registered on the same day. The Investigating Officer proceeded to the village and seized the dead body of Subhash who was aged 4 years. The body was sent for post-mortem to the government hospital. Dr. Gopal Sharma P.W.-7 conducted the post-mortem and drew up the post-mortem report Exhibit-P14 recording therein that there was a punctured wound on the middle part of front right side of the neck. On dissection of neck major blood vessels of right side of neck were found injured. The second injury was a swelling on the right side of the neck behind right ear. The third injury was a lacerated wound on the right shoulder having dimension of 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. Five abrasions, dimensions whereof were 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. and 1 c.m. x / c.m. on the back, were recorded in the postmortem report. The second injury was a swelling on the right side of the neck behind right ear. The third injury was a lacerated wound on the right shoulder having dimension of 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. Five abrasions, dimensions whereof were 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. and 1 c.m. x / c.m. on the back, were recorded in the postmortem report. Cause of death is excessive bleeding causing hemorrhagic shock. 5. Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 of Tulsi Devi P.W.-2 and Master Rohitash P.W.-3 were recorded. 6. The appellant was arrested on 23.11.2008 at 12.15 p.m. as recorded in the arrest memo Exhibit-11. The Investigating Officer interrogated him and recorded the disclosure statement Exhibit-27 pursuant whereto on the same day appellant got recovered a Gandasi as recorded in the memo Exhibit-P26. The place of recovery is a bush in the fields of the appellant. 7. As is usual in cases of the kind, blood stained clothes which the accused was wearing at the time of the crime have surprisingly not being recovered. 8. It is apparent that the case of the prosecution would be resting on the testimony of the wife and the son of the appellant who have been examined as P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 respectively for the reason Exhibit-P1 got recorded by P.W.-1 who gave information to the police was on the basis of what was told to him by P.W.-2 and P.W.-3. 9. At the trial the informant Naurang Lal deposed facts to prove Exhibit-P1. Tulsi Devi appearing as P.W.-2 deposed that on the day of the incident she went to the field with her husband. It was election time. After taking alcohol in the field her husband parted with her stating that he was going for an election rally to Sardar Sahar. Her children were at home. Her son Rohitash came running to her and informed her that his father had taken Subhash with him. She went with her son to the field. She saw her son Subhash smeared in blood and her husband Lal Chand sleeping nearby. Blood was oozing from the neck of Subhash. She brought him to the house. Villagers gathered. Her husband had murdered her son. 10. In cross-examination she admitted that she and her husband left for the field in a joyful mood. She admitted that when she brought the dead body of her son to the house, villagers had gathered. Blood was oozing from the neck of Subhash. She brought him to the house. Villagers gathered. Her husband had murdered her son. 10. In cross-examination she admitted that she and her husband left for the field in a joyful mood. She admitted that when she brought the dead body of her son to the house, villagers had gathered. She admitted that the villagers did not apprehend her husband. 11. Rohitash appeared as P.W.-3 and deposed that they were two brothers. He was the elder brother. On the day of the incident his father came to the house and took Subhash with him. He went to tell this fact to the mother who was in the field. He and his mother went to the field where his father had taken Subhash. Subhash was lying on the ground with blood oozing from his neck. His father was sleeping nearby. 12. During cross-examination he admitted that the father used to love both sons equally. His father used to bring sweets and fruits for both the brothers. 13. The simplicity of the case which has become itself complexity, is the testimony of the wife of the appellant and his son as per whom after the appellant took his son Subhash and went to the field this fact was informed by Rohitash to his mother resulting in the mother and son reaching the field in question. They saw the appellant sleeping and Subhash lying dead with an injury on the neck. No motive has emerged and the murder is in a field. 14. A vital fact of great importance emerges from the testimony of Tulsi. Her husband had consumed alcohol in the field in her presence. Two things could have happened. The first could be that for reasons unknown, under the influence of alcohol, the appellant gave beating to the son and picked up the Gandasa and caused fatal injury on the neck of his son. Another possibility could be that a passer-by, on seeing the appellant lying drunk on the field, took advantage to inflict injury on the son of the appellant. 15. Another possibility could be that a passer-by, on seeing the appellant lying drunk on the field, took advantage to inflict injury on the son of the appellant. 15. The fact that Gandasi i.e. weapon of offence was picked up from the bushes in the field throws light on the fact that in all probability it was not the appellant who did so for the reason the testimony of his wife and son to the effect that he was sleeping in the field with the further testimony of the wife that her husband had consumed alcohol leads to the inference that the appellant was in a state of stupor, perceived to be sleeping, in the field and thus he could not have thrown the Gandasa in the bushes. If he had used the Gandasa his wife would have seen the same lying nearby. 16. Thus, though the testimony of the witnesses points the finger of guilt towards the appellant but at the same time does not rule out the possibility of somebody else being the perpetrator of the crime. 17. We therefore give benefit of doubt to the appellant who has suffered incarceration for 10 years and 6 months already. 18. The appeal is allowed. Impugned Judgement dated 02.12.2011 convicting the appellant for the offence of murder is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge of murdering his son. The sentence to undergo imprisonment for life is set aside. 19. Since the appellant is in custody he is directed to be released forthwith unless required to be in custody in some other case. 20. However, keeping in view the provisions of section 437A Cr.P.C., 1973 the accused appellant is directed to furnish personal bond in sum of Rs. 15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present Judgement on receipt of notice thereof, the appellants shall appear before the Supreme Court.