Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2277 (RAJ)

Trilok Ram v. The State Of Rajasthan

2018-12-10

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2018
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present appeal under Section 374(2) has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 24.08.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.101/2011, whereby the accused-appellant has been acquitted from the charge of offences under section 323 & 325 IPC but convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution case as unfolded in the complaint dated 06.11.2010 (Ex.P/3) submitted by Pushpa Devi at Police Station, Khedapa, District Jodhpur wherein she stated that on 05.11.2010 at around 11:00 pm while she was at home with her family, her husband having consumed liquor came to the house, abused her by using derogatory language and killed her daughter Manju by strangulation. The accused was suspicious about her character and would always say that these kids were not born from his loins and for this reason, he throttled her daughter Manju and killed her. The accused threatened her of dire consequences if she told about the incident to anybody. She kept quiet and in the morning at 06:00 A.M. when the accused went away, she informed Jagdish S/o Ramu Ram and Gomad Ram S/o Bijaram about the incident. A search was made for the accused but he could not be apprehended and for this reason, delay occasioned in reporting the matter to the police. Ten days ago, the accused assaulted her son by stones with an intention to kill him which resulted into fracture of his leg. The accused also threatened to kill her. 3. On the aforesaid complaint, a formal FIR No.155/2011 was registered at Police Station, Khedapa, District Jodhpur against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused appellant for the offences under sections 302, 323 & 325 IPC. 4. Learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 325 & 323 IPC and the same were read over and explained to him but he denied the charges and sought for trial in the matter. 5. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents in its support. 4. Learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 325 & 323 IPC and the same were read over and explained to him but he denied the charges and sought for trial in the matter. 5. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents in its support. In defence, DW1 Shiv Lal was examined and one document Ex.D/1 was exhibited. 6. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and was confronted with the evidence adduced during the course of trial who stated that he is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that right from beginning of the marriage, his wife was tutored by his in laws. She used to quarrel with him for one reason or another. On the night of the alleged incident, because of excessive cold weather, Manju was covered by quilt from all sides and being covered with multiple quilts, she could not breathe and died by suffocation. In the morning, his wife went to her parental house and because of their tutoring, a false case was registered against him. 7. Learned trial Court after hearing the arguments, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 24.08.2011 for the offence under section 302 IPC. Hence, this appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that there is no evidence worth the name on record to show that Manju was killed by the accused-appellant except statement of PW12 Pushpa Devi who is mother of the deceased and wife of the accused and that too for the simple reason that she wanted to implicate him in a false case as relationship between the two was not very cordial. He further submits that nobody else had seen the accused throttling his daughter rather it is a case in which because of cold weather, Manju was covered by quilts which were quite heavy and because of multiple quilts having fallen on her at the night time, she suffocated resulting into her death. The accused has absolutely no role to play in the present incident. The accused has absolutely no role to play in the present incident. Further he has taken us to the statements of prosecution witnesses and tried to submit that none of the prosecution witnesses in their statements stated that it was the accused-appellant who killed deceased Manju. He further submits that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and even in the statement of PW3 Jagdish, it has come on record that death of Manju was caused as she was suffocated because of falling of 3-4 quilts on her body. He further submits that even in the statement of PW14 Dalip Kumar who is investigating Officer, it has come on record that he had not taken statements of the persons residing in the neighborhood of the accused which categorically goes to show that statements of interested witnesses were only recorded just to falsely implicate the present accused-appellant in the crime in question. On the strength of statement of PW5 Dr. C.P. Mathur, learned counsel submits that there was no injury on the neck of the deceased Manju and cause of death is suffocation and not strangulation which further confirms that allegation of killing Manju is nothing but false implication of the appellant in the present case. He, therefore, prays that learned trial court committed error while convicting the appellant vide judgment dated 24.08.2011. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supporting the judgment dated 24.08.2011 has submitted that prosecution has been able to prove the allegations leveled against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts on the strength of prosecution evidence having been corroborated by the medical evidence. He further submits that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW12 Pushpa Devi who is mother of the deceased. In her statement, she categorically named the accused and the manner in which her daughter had been killed is fortified from the postmortem report (Ex.P/6) wherein cause of death has been shown as Asphyxia due to suffocation. He further submits that for the incident which took place in the night of 05.10.2010, the FIR was lodged on 06.11.2010 and if the story of the accused is believed then there is no reason for the accused to run away from the place of the incident as he was arrested by the police on 15.11.2010 i.e. almost 9-10 days after the date of the incident. The FIR registered by PW12 Pushpa Devi further corroborates the fact that the story projected by the accused on the face of it is unbelievable, false and fabricated. The conduct of the accused-appellant is also not natural as in the case of accidental death, he should have been the first person to lodge the FIR or should have taken deceased Manju in normal course to the hospital, therefore, not reporting the matter immediately is a factor which goes against the appellant. In these circumstances, he prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the accused appellant and craves upholding the judgment passed by learned trial court. 11. Having considered the submissions made at bar and after minutely going through the evidence available on record, we note that PW12 Pushpa stated that relationship between her and the accused was strained. The accused used to assault her without any reason. She lives with her two kids in a separate accommodation from mother in law and brother in law. The entire village was aware about mal-treatment meted to her by the accused and therefore, the accused was counseled on number of occasions. The deceased Manju was killed by the accused by throttling her neck. While Pushpa intervened, the accused threatened her that she would also be killed, if she disclosed about the incident to anybody. She informed her brother Gomad Ram and thereafter, the report was submitted. The statement of Pushpa Devi (PW12) is worth credence as there is no reason for us to disbelieve the testimony of this witness that the accused was present in the house on the fateful night. He being the husband of PW12, his presence in the house is quite natural. Further since the accused was under an impression that the children were not born from his loins, it is quite believable that he killed Manju by throttling believing her to be an illicit offspring. Statement of PW12 Pushpa Devi gets corroborated from the postmortem report (Ex.P/6). The plea put forth by the accused in the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 that the cause of death is accidental because of falling of quilts over the face of deceased Manju and she died of suffocation is only a weak defence as a result thereof which is worth rejection. 12. The plea put forth by the accused in the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 that the cause of death is accidental because of falling of quilts over the face of deceased Manju and she died of suffocation is only a weak defence as a result thereof which is worth rejection. 12. We also find that conduct of the accused-appellant was also quite unnatural because if he had not done anything wrong with the child, there was absolutely no reason for him to flee away from the place of incident. Rather being father of deceased Manju, he was under an obligation that if his daughter had died, at least, to confirm her death or to make last attempt to save her, he should have taken her to the nearest hospital or dispensary etc. but not doing this or not taking resort to such an attempt, such conduct of the accused-appellant creates doubt and at the same time PW12 Pushpa Devi lodging the FIR the very next morning after informing the same story to Gomad Ram and Jagdish gets credence and is absolutely worth believing. It has also come on record that since the accused-appellant was having suspicion about character of his wife and as he was carrying a suspicion that the kids were illicit offspring shows hatred in the mind of the accused qua his wife and the kids. It has also come in evidence that the accused tried to kill his son who was injured and one of his leg got fractured fortifies the fact the accused was quite inimical towards his wife and the kids. 13. PW3 Jagdish also stated that he was informed by PW12 Pushpa Devi that her husband (accused) had killed her daughter. PW4 Gomad Ram also stated almost on the same lines as PW3 Jagdish. PW14 Dalip Kumar (I.O.) stated that he conducted the investigation in the matter, recorded statements, collected samples, made recoveries and prepared site plan etc. in accordance with the provisions of law reveals that accused-appellant is the only person who has killed his daughter Manju. PW5 Dr. C.P.Mathur who conducted the postmortem of the deceased stated that death of deceased Manju was caused because of suffocation. Exp.6 is postmortem report wherein cause of death of deceased Manju is shown as asphyxia due to suffocation. Exp.1 is site plan. 14. PW5 Dr. C.P.Mathur who conducted the postmortem of the deceased stated that death of deceased Manju was caused because of suffocation. Exp.6 is postmortem report wherein cause of death of deceased Manju is shown as asphyxia due to suffocation. Exp.1 is site plan. 14. We note that age of deceased Manju was only two years and since she was a kid, her death by asphyxia and suffocation is born out from the evidence in the present case. We further note that in the site plan (Ex.P/1) prepared by the police, no quilts were shown whereas as per the version of the accused, there were number of quilts lying in the room in which the incident had taken place and thus, the defence plea is not corroborated by the site plan. 15. Taking into consideration all facts of the case, we find that conduct of the accused-appellant was very unnatural. His presence on the spot is proved beyond doubt and the prosecution witnesses in their testimony have narrated the true picture which gets corroborated from the medical evidence proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Minor deviations in the statements of the prosecution witnesses will not be fatal for the prosecution and the same will not vitiate the evidence which other proves guilt of the appellant in the crime in question. 16. In view of whatever stated above, we are of the view that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed. The judgment dated 24.08.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur is upheld.