Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 433 (RAJ)

RANVEER SINGH JATAV v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2018-02-05

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2018
JUDGMENT : GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.05.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bayana (Bharatpur) ['the learned trial court' for short] in Sessions Cases No. 87/2011 whereby the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as under: U/s 302 IPC: To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused appellant was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of two months. U/s 201 IPC: To undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine the accused appellant was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that the complainant Sugreev son of Rewati Ram (PW14), r/o Kauwa Ka Nagla (Bharatpur) submitted a written report (Ex.P1) at Primary Health Center, Halena to S.H.O., Police Station Halena at 12:20 P.M on 21.5.2011 to the effect that the marriage of his daughter Kavita was solemnized on 26.02.2009 with Ranveer s/o Shri Ram Singh r/o Bhutoli. In the marriage, sufficient dowry was given as per their capacity but the bridegroom side was happy and there was persistent demand of Motorcycle, Rs. 51,000/- cash, one gold chain and gold ring. His daughter was subjected to physical cruelty and she was ousted from the matrimonial home, so his daughter came to his place and was living with him. But on 16.05.2011 after being counselled by five Panchas and fulfilling the demand, they sent Kavita to her in-laws place. In the night of 20.05.2011 Ranveer hit a blow on her head with sharp edged weapon and Ram Singh also gave beatings as a result of which she sustained multiple injuries and lastly succumbed to the injuries. In this incident, Rambabu s/o Pooran was also involved. Therefore it is requested that the report be registered and legal action be taken. 3. On the basis of the said written report, an FIR No. 92/2011 for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC was registered. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against accused appellant for offences under sections 302 and 201 IPC in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Weir. 3. On the basis of the said written report, an FIR No. 92/2011 for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC was registered. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against accused appellant for offences under sections 302 and 201 IPC in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Weir. After taking cognizance in the matter, the case was committed to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 2, Bayana from where the case was transferred to the learned trial court. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused appellant under sections 302 and 201 IPC, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case got the statements of twelve witnesses recorded and fifteen documents were exhibited. 4. Thereafter, the accused appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 In defence, the accused appellant exhibited four documents. Learned trial court after hearing the final arguments, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant vide impugned judgment dated 24.05.2013 as indicated above. Hence this appeal. 5. Mr. Satyapal Poshwal, learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant has argued that the learned trial court did appreciate that the witnesses of recovery have turned hostile and did support the recovery of 'kulhadi' (axe) from the possession of the accused appellant. The learned trial court did appreciate that deceased Kavita was happy with her marriage with the accused appellant and she did want to live with her husband. She wanted to live with some another person. This fact is quite clear from the statements of Pinki (PW5), the sister of the deceased, who stated this fact in her statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C , 1973but later-on she made improvements in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 Learned counsel for the accused appellant argued that the prosecution produced Pinki (PW5) as an eye-witness but in-fact she was an eyewitness. As per her statement, when deceased Kavita and accused appellant were quarrelling, she advised deceased Kavita to live with the appellant and then she went to sleep with her. At 9:00 P.M, when she woke up, she came to know that Kavita was being taken to hospital in Ambulance. Learned counsel for the accused appellant further argued that no report of FSL was produced by the prosecution in evidence. At 9:00 P.M, when she woke up, she came to know that Kavita was being taken to hospital in Ambulance. Learned counsel for the accused appellant further argued that no report of FSL was produced by the prosecution in evidence. In absence of FSL report, it cannot be proved as to how deceased Kavita had died. The learned trial court did appreciate that in-fact on the date of death, deceased Kavita was sitting on the parapets of roof of the house and suddenly she fell down in the staircase and the pointed stone lying at the stairs hit the head of Kavita due to which she was seriously injured and ultimately died. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate that Dr. P.S. Arora (PW4) who conducted post-mortem of deceased Kavita, deposed that the possibility of Kavita sustaining serious injuries due to fall in the staircase and getting hit by a pointed stone cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel for the accused appellant further argued that the learned trial court did appreciate that the time of death of deceased Kavita is also suspicious. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the appeal and supported the impugned Judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and carefully scanned the material on record, exhibits and the deposition of witnesses. 8. As per the case of the prosecution, out of twelve prosecution witnesses four persons; Sugreev (PW1)- father of deceased, Kamla (PW2) mother of deceased, Gopal (PW6)-grand-uncle (Tau) of deceased and Pinki (PW5)-sister of deceased, are family members and related to deceased. As per the case of the prosecution, the eye-witness of the alleged incident is Pinki (PW5) who is daughter of complainant Sugreev and sister of deceased Kavita. Pinki (PW5) in examination-in-chief deposed that they are four sisters. She is elder one and Kavita was younger to her. On 26.02.2009 marriage of both the sisters were solemnized in Village Bhootoli. Her marriage was solemnized with Rajesh and marriage of Kavita was solemnized with Ranveer. On 20.5.2011 at about 8:45 P.M when Kavita died she was with her. Father-in-law of both are real brothers. Just after the marriage Ranveer started harassing Kavita for demand of dowry. Due to this reason, parents of Kavita did send her with Ranveer for one year. Her marriage was solemnized with Rajesh and marriage of Kavita was solemnized with Ranveer. On 20.5.2011 at about 8:45 P.M when Kavita died she was with her. Father-in-law of both are real brothers. Just after the marriage Ranveer started harassing Kavita for demand of dowry. Due to this reason, parents of Kavita did send her with Ranveer for one year. But on 16.05.2011 he together with five panchas of village brought Kavita at in-laws place. On 20th, Kavita was murdered. Ranveer quarreled with Kavita and gave beatings to her. She went to intervene and took her along with. Thereafter she remained under the impression that Ranveer and Kavita have sorted their disputes. But both sat down separately. Kavita was sitting on the parapets of the roof. She was also standing there. Ranveer came from behind and inflicted an axe (kulhadi) blow on the head of Kavita due to which she died at the spot. 9. It is pertinent to note here that mere fact that Pinki (PW5) is interested witness being relative, there appears no reason to discard her evidence. Pinki (PW5) was married in the family of accused. Her presence there was natural. She is an eye-witness of the occurrence and her presence at the scene of offence cannot be doubted. Her statement remained consistent about assault and murder of Kavita by accused Ranveer. Sugreev (PW1) reiterated the averments made in written report. Sugreev (PW1) deposed that in-laws of Kavita (deceased) used to torture Kavita and she was subjected to cruelty for dowry and in-laws also used to make persistent demand of motor-cycle, lar (chain) of gold, ring of gold and Rs. 51,000/- in cash. 10. Dr. P.S. Arora (PW4), Medical Officer deposed that on 21.5.2011 at 12:40 PM, autopsy (Ex.P7) of dead body was conducted. He further deposed that the deceased was having incised wound in the size of 8 x 1.25 cm. x bone deep oblique region central region of skull margin clear cut. He further deposed that the cause of death of deceased Kavita was due to severe trauma to head and brain. 11. Hari Narain (PW7) SHO Police Station Halena registered the written report (Ex.P1) submitted by Sugreev (PW1) father of deceased. Hari Narain (PW7) supported the averments made in the written report (Ex.P1) and registration of the FIR No. 92/2011 for the aforesaid offences. 11. Hari Narain (PW7) SHO Police Station Halena registered the written report (Ex.P1) submitted by Sugreev (PW1) father of deceased. Hari Narain (PW7) supported the averments made in the written report (Ex.P1) and registration of the FIR No. 92/2011 for the aforesaid offences. Kamal Ram Meena (PW12) Circle Officer, Bhusawar deposed that he investigated into the matter and on the basis of statements recorded and evidence collected, he submitted charge-sheet. 12. The accused appellant failed to give plausible explanation under section 313 Cr.P.C , 1973 rather he admitted his presence at the place of occurrence. The statements of Sugreev (PW1), Kamla (PW2), Pinki (PW5) and Gopal (PW6) are consistent and can not be said to be untrustworthy. In their statements, they specifically deposed the manner in which incident took place in which Kavita died. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Sher Singh v. Haryana ( AIR 2011 SC 373 ), observed that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased shows the intention of the accused. In the case in hand, postmortem report (Ex.P7) shows that there was incised wound of 8 cm. x 1.25 cm. bone deep on the person of the deceased with axe (kulhadi). This clearly proves that the intention of the appellant-accused was to cause death of his wife. The testimony of Sugreev (PW1), Kamla (PW2), Pinki (PW5) and Gopal (PW6) is also corroborated by the postmortem report (Ex.P7), which reveals that the cause of death was opined to be severe trauma to head and brain. 13. From the facts narrated herein above, it stands conclusively proved that Kavita was murdered at her in laws place by the accused appellant. Therefore, since occurrence had taken place in the matrimonial home of the deceased, a duty is cast upon the husband to explain as to how his wife had died, especially when this being special circumstance was in the knowledge of the husband. It is for the appellant to disclose as to how his wife had died. However plea taken by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, 1973 is of no help to absolve him from his guilt. Thus, we find that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused appellant by adducing cogent and reliable evidence beyond any reasonable doubt and that it was the appellant-accused who caused the death of Kavita by inflicting axe (kulahadi) blow. Thus, we find that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused appellant by adducing cogent and reliable evidence beyond any reasonable doubt and that it was the appellant-accused who caused the death of Kavita by inflicting axe (kulahadi) blow. 14. In the result, the instant criminal appeal filed by the accused appellant is bereft of merit and accordingly stands dismissed. The Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.05.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bayana (Bharatpur) in Sessions Cases No. 87/2011 is affirmed. The accused-appellant is in jail and have to serve out the remaining sentence.