Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 141 (RAJ)

Raju @ Raja Ram v. State

2019-01-10

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur.J 1. The instant appeal under Section 374(2) has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 25.05.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali District Pali in Sessions Case No.46/2010 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under sections 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two years additional simple imprisonment. 2. Facts in brief are that a written complaint was filed by PW1 Prakash Kumar at Police Station Rani District Pali on 01.05.2010 stating therein that Raju S/o Varda Ram was visiting his house for last 4-5 days requesting him and his grandfather for giving their agricultural field to him for cultivation but they refused for the reason that on earlier occasion, when they gave their agricultural field for cultivation to Raju, his conduct was not upto the mark, therefore, for last two years, they refused to give their field to him for cultivation. On 30.04.2010, at around 03:00 pm, the accused Raju again visited their house and requested for giving their field for cultivation but his request was turned down, therefore, while going back, Raju threatened his family of dire consequences. On 01.05.2010, at around 08.00 - 08:30 in the morning while he was preparing himself for going to Rani, he heard some noise. He ran outside their gate (Pole) and saw that Raju was assaulting his grandfather Shiv Lal Ji on his neck and head with a 'Kunth'. When he went to rescue his grandfather who was sitting on the platform in front of their plot, the accused Raju fled away from the spot towards the pond. Kailash Ji and Sajjan Singh Ji tried to catch hold of Raju in front of the house of Kailash Ji but they could not nab him. They informed about the incident to the police station, Rani, on telephone and his grandfather was taken to the hospital where the doctors declared him dead. 3. On the above information, a formal FIR No.65/2010 was registered at Police Station, Rani against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. After completion of investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against the accused appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC. 5. Learned Trial Court framed charge against the accusedappellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. After completion of investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against the accused appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC. 5. Learned Trial Court framed charge against the accusedappellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The same was read over and explained to him but he pleaded not guilty and sought trial. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and got exhibited 31 documents in support of its case. 7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the evidence adduced during the course of trial. He stated that he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case. 8. Learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of the defence and prosecution, convicted and sentenced the accusedappellant vide judgment dated 25.05.2013 for the offence under section 302 IPC. Hence, this appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There exist material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses creating serious doubt in the prosecution story. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the offence alleged against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. He further submits that in the arrest memo (Ex.P/8), the place of arrest was not mentioned and the place of arrest was only shown as 'Sarhad Varkana'. Even as per the statement of PW15 Ratan Singh, the investigating Officer, it was not clear that from which place exactly, the appellant was arrested. 10. He further submits that the recovery memo of the weapon of offence i.e. 'Kunth' was prepared after a gap of one hour clearly showing that the documents were fabricated by the investigation agency to falsely implicate the appellant in the present case. 11. On the strength of these arguments, he submits that the learned trial court erred while convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. vide judgment dated 25.05.2013, therefore, he prays that the appellant may be acquitted from the charge leveled against him by setting aside the judgment dated 25.05.2013. 12. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution was able to prove the offence alleged against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. 12. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution was able to prove the offence alleged against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The eye witnesses to the incident, namely, PW1 Prakash Kumar and PW2 Kailash Kumar have narrated the whole incident very clearly. 13. There was no reason to disbelieve the testimony of eye witnesses PW1 Prakash Kumar and PW2 Kailash Kumar. He further submits that the ocular evidence got fully corroborated by the medical evidence in the shape of statement of PW11 Dr. Jitendra Purohit and the postmortem report wherein the cause of death was shown to be 'Respiratory and hypovolumic shock due to trauma of carotid arteries and trachea'. The recovery of weapon of offence i.e. 'Kunth' (Ex.P/9) and FSL report (Ex.P/30) showing presence of blood of human origin complete the chain of circumstances leading to the only conclusion that it was none else than the accusedappellant who was involved in the commission of offence alleged in the present case. He, therefore, prays that the judgment dated 25.05.2013 does not warrant any interference by this Court. 14. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and examined the record of the trial Court. 15. Pw-1 Prakash Kumar stated that the deceased Shiv Lal was his grandfather. Two years prior to the date of the incident, Raju was given their agricultural field for cultivation. The conduct of accused-appellant Raju was not good, therefore, his grandfather refused to give land for cultivation to Raju. On the night previous to the incident dated 01.05.2010 at around 8:00 pm, the accusedappellant Raju came to their house and when his request for giving their land for cultivation to him was refused, he threatened his family of dire consequences. On 01.05.2010 at about 08:00- 08:30 am, accused-appellant Raju came while his grandfather was sitting on the platform in front of their plot and inflicted injuries on the neck with a 'Kunth'. On hearing hue and cry, he went out and saw that accused Raju was inflicting 'Kunth' blows on the neck of his grandfather. At the same time, Kailash Kumar also reached the spot and saw the incident. Kailash Kumar and Sajjan Singh tried to nab Raju but they failed and Raju ran away from the place of the incident. He took his grandfather to the hospital, where he was declared dead. At the same time, Kailash Kumar also reached the spot and saw the incident. Kailash Kumar and Sajjan Singh tried to nab Raju but they failed and Raju ran away from the place of the incident. He took his grandfather to the hospital, where he was declared dead. Raju assaulted his grandfather by 'Kunth' for the reason that he was not given their field for cultivation. Nothing significant was elicited and the witness could not be shaken in the cross examination so as to discredit the version as deposed by him in the examination in chief. 16. Almost on the same lines, PW2 Kailash Kumar and PW3 Sajjan Singh deposed before the trial court narrating the incident in the same sequence. 17. Pw11 Dr. Jitendra Purohit who conducted autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased Shiv Lal elaborated about the number of injuries on the body of the deceased and mentioned the cause of death as 'Respiratory and hypovolumic shock due to trauma of carotid arteries and trachea'. He further stated that even if the medical aid would have been given to the patient immediately, he could not be saved as he died instantaneously on the spot and was brought dead to the hospital. 18. Pw15 Ratan Singh is the investigation Officer who conducted the investigation of the matter and stated that he prepared the site plan, recorded the statements of the witnesses, effected the recoveries, collected the samples and after conducting the investigation, as prescribed in law, submitted his report before the court of competent jurisdiction. 19. Pw1 Prakash Kumar, PW2 Kailash Kumar and PW3 Sajjan Singh being eye witnesses of the incident narrated the incident in the same sequence after identifying the present accusedappellant. These witnesses stated that accused Raju inflicted 'Kunth' blows on the neck and head of the deceased Shiv Lal. The testimony of these eye witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of PW11 Dr. Jitendra Purohit who elaborates that sharp weapon injuries were inflicted on the head and neck of the deceased. The statements of PW1 Prakash Kumar, PW2 Kailash Kumar and PW3 Sajjan Singh also get fortified from the postmortem report wherein the injuries inflicted have been shown and the cause of death was opined as respiratory and hypovolumic shock due to traumatocarotid arteries and trachea by a sharp edged weapon'. The statements of PW1 Prakash Kumar, PW2 Kailash Kumar and PW3 Sajjan Singh also get fortified from the postmortem report wherein the injuries inflicted have been shown and the cause of death was opined as respiratory and hypovolumic shock due to traumatocarotid arteries and trachea by a sharp edged weapon'. The ocular evidence brought on record by the prosecution in the shape of PW1 Prakash Kumar, PW2 Kailash Kumar and PW3 Sajjan Singh is reliable and worth credence in the present case. Further, the arrest of the accused-appellant on the same day, recovery of bloodstained weapon of offence i.e. 'Kunth' and FSL report showing presence of blood on the weapon of offence being of human origin complete the chain of circumstances leading to the conclusion that it was none else than the accused-appellant who committed the offence alleged in the present case. 20. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the place of arrest is not specifically mentioned in the memo of arrest (Exp.8) and in the statement of PW15 Ratan Singh, investigation officer, he did not state anything regarding the place of arrest of the present appellant, is noted to be rejected for the simple reason that in the memo of arrest, it has been mentioned that the accused-appellant was arrested at 'Sarhad Varkana' and it has come in the statement of PW15 Ratan Singh that after arresting the accused-appellant from 'Sarhad Varkana', he was brought to the police station where memo of arrest was prepared. 21. As far as argument of learned counsel for the appellant with respect to the time gap of one hour in preparing the recovery memo of weapon of offence is concerned, we find that no question was put to the investigating Officer regarding the same by the defence in the cross examination. Even otherwise, we find that preparation of recovery memo of weapon of offence after a gap of one hour is inconsequential and is not of much significance which can help the appellant in the facts of the present case. Besides, the same is not sufficient to vitiate the prosecution case in any manner in view of evidence discussed above. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is rejected being bereft of merit. 22. In view of whatever stated above, we are of the view that there is no force in the appeal. 23. Besides, the same is not sufficient to vitiate the prosecution case in any manner in view of evidence discussed above. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is rejected being bereft of merit. 22. In view of whatever stated above, we are of the view that there is no force in the appeal. 23. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment dated 25.05.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali District Pali convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC is upheld.