Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2268 (RAJ)

Rana Ram v. The State Of Rajasthan

2018-12-06

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The accused Ranaram stands convicted for the offences under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-in default to further undergo imprisonment for six months simple imprisonment vide Judgment dated 11.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Balotra, HQ Barmer, District Barmer in Sessions Case No.66/2010. Being aggrieved of the above judgment of conviction, the accused appellant Ranaram has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 2. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 3. Learned Counsel Mr. Shrikant Verma representing the appellant put-forth two fold arguments before the Court and urged (a) that there is no evidence worth the name on record to connect the accused appellant with the alleged crime and that it is a case of accidental death of Smt. Jethi Devi (wife of the accused appellant) who received the head injury owing to falling of gas cylinder on her face, and (b) that even if the prosecution allegations are accepted as being true as such, there was heated discussion between the husband and the wife and under a fit of rage and under grave and sudden provocation, the accused gave a solitary blow on the head of the deceased by a gas cylinder which cannot be termed to be a weapon of offence and thus, the conviction of the appellant deserves to be converted from the offence under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC. In support of his contentions, Mr. Verma placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Jeewan Ram Jat & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2017(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 511; (ii) Pradeep Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2018 (2) R.Cr.D. 427 (Raj.); (iii) Sharwan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2018 (2) R.Cr.D. 171 (Raj.); (iv) Vajja @ Vaje Ram Adivasi v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2017 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 283; (v) Ghanshyam Vaishnav & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Reported in 2017 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj. 292 and craved acceptance of the appeal. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He urged that the appellant is a police constable. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Reported in 2017 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj. 292 and craved acceptance of the appeal. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. He urged that the appellant is a police constable. He was living in the Government Quarter No. A-7 in the Police Line Barmer with his wife (deceased Smt. Jethi Devi). On the fateful night i.e. 19.05.2010, the husband and wife had gone to sleep in the room and the witnesses were sleeping in the nearby quarters. At about 1 o 'clock' in the night, hue and cry was heard from inside the room on which, the first informant Jaswantraj (PW-5) being the son of the appellant and the deceased, approached the door of the room where, the appellant and Smt. Jethi Devi were sleeping. He saw his brothers Babulal, Raghuveer Singh and Pannalal standing outside and banging the door. After a while, the appellant opened the door upon which they saw that their mother was lying dead on a mattress on the floor which was drenched in blood. His mother's head had been split open and nearby, a gas cylinder was lying. The accused confessed in presence of all the witnesses that he had killed Smt. Jethi Devi as he suspected her character. Learned Public Prosecutor urged that as the incident took place within the confines of the room where the accused appellant and the deceased were sleeping and as the death of Smt. Jethi Devi was manifestly caused by the blow of the gas cylinder, apparently the only inference which can be drawn is that the appellant inflicted the fatal blow to the deceased causing her instantaneous death. Learned Public Prosecutor further urged that by no stretch of imagination, can the far fetched defence plea be accepted that the deceased was trying to lift the gas cylinder from a drum and that it fell on her accidentally resulting into her death. He submitted that the time of incident is 1 o 'clock in the night and thus, it is inconceivable that there would be any need to use the gas stove in the dead of the night. He submitted that the time of incident is 1 o 'clock in the night and thus, it is inconceivable that there would be any need to use the gas stove in the dead of the night. Furthermore, as per him, the kitchen is located adjacent to the room where the incident took place and while inspecting the site, the investigating officer categorically observed that the gas stove was having a gas cylinder attached to it. Therefore, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the defence theory that deceased was trying to lift and carry the gas cylinder to the kitchen at the odd hours of the night and that it accidentally fell on her is absolutely flimsy and far fetched and hence, the accused was under an obligation by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain as to how his wife received the fatal injury within the confines of the room where they were sleeping. He urged that it has clearly been stated in the FIR lodged by Shri Jaswantraj being the son of the deceased and the appellant that his father (the accused) was suspecting the character of his wife and that he murdered her. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even if the sons including the first informant turned hostile, the fact remains that the FIR lodger Jaswantraj (PW-5) is a constable and the admissible parts of the FIR can be relied upon even if he did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile at the trial. He further submits that the first informant Jaswantraj (PW-5), the witnesses Raghuveer (PW-2), ASI Moolaram (PW-9), Head Constable Pannaram, Head Constable Bihari, all admitted that on hearing a hue and cry, they reached the door of Quarter No. A-7 and raised a hue and cry and banged the door. However, for quite an interval, Ranaram did not open the door. When the door was opened, and inquiry was made, Ranaram admitted that he had killed Smt. Jethi Devi. He drew the Court's attention to the cross-examination made from Raghuveer Singh (PW-2) who stated that despite persistent banging on the door, Ranaram opened the same after 12-13 minutes. He urged that this circumstance is enough to draw an inference about the guilt of the accused. With these submissions, he craved dismissal of the appeal. 5. He drew the Court's attention to the cross-examination made from Raghuveer Singh (PW-2) who stated that despite persistent banging on the door, Ranaram opened the same after 12-13 minutes. He urged that this circumstance is enough to draw an inference about the guilt of the accused. With these submissions, he craved dismissal of the appeal. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 6. The flimsy and far-fetched contention advanced by the defence on behalf of the accused appellant that it is a case of accidental fall of the gas cylinder on the face of the deceased who was allegedly trying to lift it and carry it to the kitchen is absolutely far fetched and flimsy so as to even give it a second thought. The time of the incident is about 1 O' 'clock' in the night. Thus, there was no occasion for the deceased to have ventured for using the gas stove at that odd hour. Further, the defence theory put-forth in the statements of Babulal (PW-3), Jaswantraj (PW-2) sons of the deceased and DW-1 Smt. Jayashri being the daughter-in-law is totally contradictory. While Babulal and Jayshri claimed that Shri Ranaram asked Jaswantraj to prepare tea and the deceased intervened and stated that she would prepare the same, on the other hand, Jaswantraj the first informant never claimed that his father told him to prepare tea and rather stated that his mother was preparing tea and the cylinder fell on her when she was trying to replace the empty one. Ex-facie, the defence theory that the lady lifted the cylinder and was trying to carry it to the kitchen and the same fell on her face is far to unconvincing and preposterous because of the location of the injury. The position of the dead body as seen in the site inspection plan (Ex. P/3) and the photographs (Ex. P/17 to Ex. p/19) shows that the deceased is lying flat on her back on the mattress. The iron drum is placed towards her feet at some distance. The gas cylinder is sitting straight up in the balcony outside the room. The position of the dead body as seen in the site inspection plan (Ex. P/3) and the photographs (Ex. P/17 to Ex. p/19) shows that the deceased is lying flat on her back on the mattress. The iron drum is placed towards her feet at some distance. The gas cylinder is sitting straight up in the balcony outside the room. If it is believed for the sake of it that the deceased wanted to change the cylinder and was carrying it towards the kitchen then obviously, she would try to roll it on the floor rather than lifting it above her head which effort would be virtually impossible for a woman. The possibility of the cylinder falling on the face of the deceased would arise only if it was being carried by her on her head. Apparently, it is impossible that a lady, aged about more than 50 years, would be in a physical condition so as to lift the filled cylinder weighing about 30 Kgs. above her head so as to carry the same to the kitchen. Further, the three able-bodied sons of the deceased were living in the nearby quarters and if any occasion arose to take the cylinder to the kitchen, the sons would have been called. On a perusal of the photographs taken from the site after the occurrence more particularly Ex. P/18, it is apparent that the cylinder is sitting straight up in the balcony and the blood is splayed all around it. Thus, had it been the case that the cylinder fell on the face of the deceased, it is inconceivable as to how, the same would retain the upright position in which it was found. The direction of the blood stains found on the floor is clearly indicative of the fact that the deceased was sleeping on her back on the mattress and the cylinder was thrown down on her face from a height with such a violent force that her face got crushed and the brain matter came out. The conduct of the appellant in not opening the door of the room for quite some time despite the shouts raised and banging by the persons standing outside also clearly points towards his guilt. Had it been a case of accidental injury, then in natural human conduct, the accused should have opened the door and called out for help instantaneously. The conduct of the appellant in not opening the door of the room for quite some time despite the shouts raised and banging by the persons standing outside also clearly points towards his guilt. Had it been a case of accidental injury, then in natural human conduct, the accused should have opened the door and called out for help instantaneously. The contention advanced by Shri Verma that the conviction of the appellant should be altered from the offence under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC is also far fetched and untenable. In the cases, referred to supra, relied upon by Shri Verma, the Courts were seized of the situations where, the incident was not premeditated or pre-planned, undue advantage was not taken by the accused; they did not act in a cruel manner; there was no intention to kill the deceased or the solitary injury was inflicted without any intention or pre-meditation, etc. In the case at hand, none of these circumstances exist. Manifestly, the appellant had a simmering doubt about the virtues of his wife even at this belated stage of their matrimony and as a climax to his vengeful suspicious attitude, he woke up in the dead of the night, lifted the gas cylinder and in an extremely cruel fashion, threw the same on the face of his unknowing sleeping wife thereby killing her instantaneously. The blow was so violent that the face of the lady was totally crushed and the brain matter came out and was splayed around on the floor. Not only this, the accused did not allow the family members to enter into the room and tried to ward them off by keeping the door locked for quite some time. In this background, none of the judgments cited by Mr. Verma apply to the facts of the case at hand as the same are totally distinguishable. Ex-facie, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or irregularity whatsoever warranting interference of this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. 7. In wake of the discussion made herein above, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment 11.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Balotra, HQ Barmer, District Barmer whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as above. 8. Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.