Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 293 (RAJ)

Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-22

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J —By way of this revision under Section 397 CrPC, the accused petitioner Manohar Singh has approached this court for challenging the order dated 16.01.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) , Balotara in Sessions Case No.2/2009, whereby the learned trial Judge directed framing of charges against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 302 and 458 IPC. 2. Facts in brief are that Shri Babu Singh, lodged a report at the Police Station Balotara on 24.05.2008 alleging inter alia that on the night intervening 23.05.2008 and 24.05.2008, he was returning home after shutting down his milk dairy. When he reached outside his brother Peer Singh's house, he saw a car parked outside. Out of curiosity, he went inside the house of Peer Singh, upon which, he saw Bhagwat Singh, Surajbhan Singh, Sawai Singh and Manohar Singh Rajput standing there. They fired gunshots on the head of Peer Singh. The complainant was threatened by the accused to go away or face the same consequences. On hearing the gunshots, the neighbours Pukhraj Singh and Mal Singh came there and on seeing them approaching, the accused persons escaped in their car. The motive behind the incident, as mentioned in the FIR, was that Prem Singh had lodged a report of molestation of his daughter against Manohar Singh and that these people had threatened to kill Peer Singh in relation to the said incident. 3. On basis of this report, an FIR No.301/2008 was registered at the Police Station Balotara for the offences under Sections 143, 458 and 302 IPC and investigation commenced. Looking at the suspicious conduct of the complainant, who did not take timely steps for either taking Peer Singh to the hospital or of reporting the matter to the police, the IGP, Range Jodhpur entrusted investigation of the case to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Barmer. The Investigating Officer found the evidence of motive attributed to Manohar Singh and the evidence of the allged eye-witnesses Mal Singh and Pukhraj Singh to be credible and the accused petitioner Manohar Singh was arrested in this case on 25.05.2008. However, Manohar Singh did not admit his complicity in the crime despite thorough interrogation. The weapon of offence allegedly used in the murder could not be recovered. However, Manohar Singh did not admit his complicity in the crime despite thorough interrogation. The weapon of offence allegedly used in the murder could not be recovered. The call details and tower locations of the accused persons named in the FIR were collected and upon a detailed analysis thereof, the Investigating Officer concluded that presence of the accused could not be proved at the scene of occurrence at the relevant point of time. The Investigating Officer also concluded that the motive attributed to Manohar Singh as set out in the FIR was also conjectural and fictional because the incident of Manohar Singh molesting the girl from the Rajpurohit caste, had no relevance or connection with the murder of Peer Singh, who was neither the aggrieved person nor a witness to the said incident. The Investigating Officer also found that the complainant Babu Singh allegedly claimed to have seen the incident in the night at about 1 O'clock, but even though he was having a mobile phone with him, he never tried to inform the police of the gruesome and ghastly incident involving murder of his real brother and nor did he inform of the happening to any family member of the deceased, who were sleeping in the same house. Similar flaws were noticed in the version of Narayan Singh, son of the deceased. The statements of daughters of Peer Singh were recorded by the Investigating Officer and these witnesses stated that when their mother Smt. Kamla got up in the morning and went into Peer Singh's room, she saw him lying there in a pool of blood. On this, they raised a hue and cry and whereupon, Babu Singh (the first informant) , Mal Singh and Pukhraj Singh came around. Isha Kanwar, daughter-in-law of the deceased averred in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC that she got up in the morning at about 6 O'clock and started cleaning the house. Her father-in-law, deceased Peer Singh routinely used to prepare tea for himself and would consume it in the chowk. However, as he did not come out of his room on the fateful morning, her mother-in-law became suspicious and went into the room, where the deceased used to sleep. She saw Peer Singh lying there in a pool of blood and raised a hue and cry. However, as he did not come out of his room on the fateful morning, her mother-in-law became suspicious and went into the room, where the deceased used to sleep. She saw Peer Singh lying there in a pool of blood and raised a hue and cry. The witness categorically stated that her husband Narayan Singh had gone to her matrimonial village Indrana on the previous evening. Smt. Kamla, wife of the deceased also stated that Narayan Singh was at his in-law's home in Village Indrana. However, she gave a different version of the actual incident alleging that she got up hearing the hue and cry of Babu Singh and saw in the moonlight that her husband was lying dead. Various persons, who lived and worked around the house of Peer Singh, upon being examined under Section 161 CrPC, categorically stated that they did not notice any kind of commotion from the house of Peer Singh on the fateful night. Narayan Singh, son of the deceased Peer Singh, also claimed to have witnessed the incident and implicated Manohar Singh, Sawai Singh and Bhagwat Singh. However, the Investigating Officer collected positive and plausible evidence to the effect that Babu Singh, the first informant, and Narayan Singh, son of the deceased, the first informant, went around doing their routine jobs as usual on the morning after the incident. Narayan Singh collected milk from various people, viz. Sang Singh, Ganga Singh, Mangla Ram, Bhura Ram, Nathu Singh etc. from the village Thapan and told them that he would be proceeding to Mananawas (village of the deceased) . On analysis of the call details of the mobile phones of Narayan Singh, the Investigating Officer found that his mobile was switched off on 23.05.2008 at 19.42 hrs. and was restarted on 24.05.2008 in the morning at 6.23 hrs. The Investigating Officer concluded that Narayan Singh was not present in the house on the fateful night because had he known of the incident, he would not have gone around collecting and distributing milk as usual in the morning after the incident. The Investigating Officer recorded and affirmative finding in the conclusion report that neither Babu Singh nor Narayan Singh had actually seen the incident and that Manohar Singh, who had been arrested by them, was not involved in the murder of Peer Singh 4. The Investigating Officer recorded and affirmative finding in the conclusion report that neither Babu Singh nor Narayan Singh had actually seen the incident and that Manohar Singh, who had been arrested by them, was not involved in the murder of Peer Singh 4. The mobile instrument of Peer Singh went missing after the incident and was found in possession of the accused Hanuman Singh, who confessed to the murder and accordingly, he was arrested for the offences under Sections 302, 397, 460 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. The firearm used in the incident as well as some live cartridges were recovered at his instance. The Investigating Officer also found during investigation that Hanuman Singh had the motive for committing the crime and accordingly, an application under Section 169 CrPC was filed in the trial court with a prayer for releasing Manohar Singh from the array of accused and a charge-sheet was filed against Hanuman Singh for the offences under Section 302, 449, 404 IPC and 3/25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 5. The trial court rejected the said application by order dated 16.01.2012 and proceeded to frame charges for the offences under Sections 302 and 458 IPC against the present petitioner and for the offences under Sections 449, 404, 302 IPC and 3/25 and 27 of the Arms Act against co-accused Hanuman Singh. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The petitioner Manohar Singh has approached this court by filing this revision under Section 397 CrPC being aggrieved of the aforesaid order. 6. Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently urged that there is not an iota of evidence on the entire record so as to justify the order framing charges against the petitioner. He urged that the Investigating Officer, categorically found that the first informant Babu Singh and the eye-witness Narayan Singh never saw the incident and had cooked up the story regarding them having seen the murder. He urged that had there been iota of truth in the statements of these two witnesses that they had seen the assailants killing Peer Singh, then there was no justification as to why they failed to report the matter promptly to the police and casually went about their routine day to day activities without raising any hue and cry whatsoever. He urged that had there been iota of truth in the statements of these two witnesses that they had seen the assailants killing Peer Singh, then there was no justification as to why they failed to report the matter promptly to the police and casually went about their routine day to day activities without raising any hue and cry whatsoever. He further submits that the circumstances emanating from the statements of Smt. Kamla, wife, Smt. Isha Kanwar, daughter-in-law, Sushri Shanti and Seeta, daughters of the deceased, clearly indicate that as a matter of fact, none of these witnesses saw or heard anyone firing the gunshots and killing Peer Singh. The murder came to light in the morning after when Smt. Kamla went to the room of Peer Singh and saw him lying in a pool of blood. He, thus, urges that there is no justification whatsoever behind the impugned order framing charges against the petitioner and that the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled to be discharged. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and contended that Babu Singh had no motive whatsoever to falsely implicate the petitioner in the crime. He gave an absolutely truthful version of the incident as seen by him. As per the learned Public Prosecutor, no significance can be attached to the circumstance that the matter was not reported to the police by the witnesses in the night because, as per the witnesses, a strong sandstorm had blown in the night and hence, hue and cry, if any raised by the witnesses, could not have been heard by anyone in the vicinity. He further urged that at the stage of framing of charges, the court is not required to sift and evaluate evidence very minutely and even strong suspicion is sufficient to frame charges against the accused in a case of murder. He, thus, implored to reject the revision and affirm the impugned order. 8. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. He, thus, implored to reject the revision and affirm the impugned order. 8. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Ex facie I am of the firm opinion that the conduct of the first informant Babu Singh and the so called eye-witness Narayan Singh, son of the deceased, is undoubtedly very suspicious and shady and does not stand to scrutiny on the touchstone of natural human conduct. If at all, Babu Singh, being the brother of the deceased, and his son Narayan Singh had seen the incident, then in common course of events and as per natural human conduct, least that was expected from them was to raise a hue and cry and call the people from the vicinity. They definitely would have informed ladies of the house of the gruesome murder of the head of the family. Narayan Singh did not even inform his wife Isha Kanwar that Peer Singh had been shot dead. Smt. Isha Kanwar categorically stated during investigation that she woke up in the morning after the incident and started cleaning the house in a routine manner when she heard her mother-in-law shouting that Shri Peer Singh was lying in a pool of blood. The statement of Smt. Isha Kanwar clearly destroys the credibility of the story set up by Babu Singh, Narayan Singh and Smt. Kamla in their statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC that they were conscious of the incident and had seen the assailants shooting Peer Singh. Though it is true that at the stage of framing charges, minute and threadbare appreciation of prosecution evidence is not warranted and strong suspicion in itself is sufficient to frame charge and send the accused for trial; but if the admitted circumstances and evidence available on record make the prosecution case totally unworthy of credence, then the court, without any doubt has to delve into the credibility of the prosecution case to find out the truth. The case at hand is one where this court is convinced that the story of the prosecution as set out both in the FIR and in the statements of the so called eyewitnesses Narayan Singh, Babu Singh and Smt. Kamla recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 CrPC is totally unbelievable, conjectural and concocted. 10. The case at hand is one where this court is convinced that the story of the prosecution as set out both in the FIR and in the statements of the so called eyewitnesses Narayan Singh, Babu Singh and Smt. Kamla recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 CrPC is totally unbelievable, conjectural and concocted. 10. The conduct of the first informant Babu Singh and the Narayan Singh (son of the deceased) in failing to take any steps towards either informing the police, the responsible people in the village as well as the ladies of the house regarding the alleged fatal assault made upon Peer Singh and in casually going about their routine affairs in the morning after the incident is far too significant to be overlooked. It is beyond belief and alien to natural human conduct that if the incident had been seen by the brother and son of the deceased, then they would not react by raising a hue and cry and would not inform the police. Had there been an iota of truth in the story set up by these two star prosecution eye-witnesses, then there was no reason as to why Babu Singh would not have mentioned about the presence of Narayan Singh as an eye-witness in the written FIR submitted as late as at around 11.40 a.m. in the morning after the incident. Though of course it is mentioned in the FIR that Babu Singh immediately informed the people in the neighborhood and the family members about the incident, but Sushri Shanti and Seeta, daughters of Peer Singh and Smt. Isha Kanwar, his daughter in law, upon being examined under Section 161, categorically stated that they came to know of the fatal assault made upon the deceased in the morning after Smt. Kamla, wife of Peer Singh, went inside his room and raised a hue and cry. It is absolutely unbelievable that even after becoming aware of the incident, the ladies of the house would not have raised an alarm and would have casually returned to sleep. Apparently, the finding given by the Investigating Officer in the report under Section 169 CrPC that Babu Singh, Narayan Singh and Smt. Kamla never saw the incident and that Manohar Singh has been falsely implicated in the case is based on absolutely sound convincing and cogent reasons. 11. Apparently, the finding given by the Investigating Officer in the report under Section 169 CrPC that Babu Singh, Narayan Singh and Smt. Kamla never saw the incident and that Manohar Singh has been falsely implicated in the case is based on absolutely sound convincing and cogent reasons. 11. On perusal of the order under challenge, it is apparent that the trial court did not even barely advert to the reasonings and findings given by the Investigating Officer in the negative report submitted qua the petitioner Manohar Singh and charges were directed to be framed against him in the above terms without recording even the basic satisfaction as warranted by Section 227/228 of the CrPC. 12. This court is of the firm opinion that the circumstances do not warrant that the accused Manohar Singh should be made to face trial for the grave offence under Section 302 IPC as there exists no evidence whatsoever on the record so as to connect him with the alleged offence. 13. As a consequence of the above discussion, the instant revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 16.01.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Balotara and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioner Manohar Singh are quashed and set aside to the extent of the petitioner Manohar Singh. Trial of the accused Hanuman Singh shall continue as per law.