Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1457 (RAJ)

Manaram And Anr v. State of Rajasthan Through PP

2019-05-10

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Manaram son of Hari Narayan and Kartar son of Ram Narayan were tried by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, Camp Court Dudu, District Jaipur. The said court vide impugned judgment dated 25.4.2015 convicted both the appellants Manaram and Kartar for offence under Section 302/34 IPC. 2. Having convicted the appellants for the above said offence, the trial Judge vide a separate order of even date sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional three months imprisonment. 3. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 4. In the present case, Chhotu Ram (P.W.1) had presented a written report (Exhibit-P/1) before Banne Singh (P.W.22) who was then Officer on duty at Police Station Dudu. On the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/1), a formal FIR (Exhibit-P/34) bearing No. 393/2011 was registered at Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur for the offences under Sections 143 and 302 IPC. 5. In the written report (Exhibit-P/1) Chhotu Ram (P.W.1) stated that on 28.10.2011 at 3:00 PM, his brother Ram Kishan alongwith his motorcycle was standing behind Lala Hotel on the college road. At that time, Manaram came driving tractor. On the tractor Ram Narayan, Kartar, Chenaram and Hari Narayan were sitting armed with weapons. They in pre-planned manner ran over tractor on his brother Ram Kishan and after Ram Kishan was lying crushed beneath the tractor, they caused injuries with weapons. It was stated by him that murder was committed by hitting Ram Kishan with a tractor and causing injuries with weapons. 6. The prosecution to secure conviction of the appellants, examined twenty two witnesses namely, Chhotu Ram (P.W.1), Sardar (P.W.2), Kana Ram (P.W.3), Lala Ram (P.W.4), Ram Charan (P.W.5), Bharat Singh (P.W.6), Shyoram (P.W.7), Dr. Ajay Gupta (P.W.8), Dr. Mahendra Agrawal (P.W.9), Laxman (P.W.10), Om Prakash (P.W.11), Har Govind (P.W.12), Kamal Kumar (P.W.13), Chaina Ram (P.W.14), Harji Ram (P.W.15), Shyolal (P.W.16), Rajpal Singh (P.W.17), Shrawan (P.W.18), Banshilal Mali (P.W.19), Vijay Sehara (P.W.20), Subhay Singh (P.W.21) and Banne Singh (P.W.22). 7. The case of the prosecution primarily rests upon the ocular version which has emerged in the testimony of Chhotu Ram (P.W.1), Sardar (P.W.2), Kana Ram (P.W.3), Lala Ram (P.W.4), Ram Charan (P.W.5), Chaina Ram (P.W.14) and Harji Ram (P.W.15). 8. 7. The case of the prosecution primarily rests upon the ocular version which has emerged in the testimony of Chhotu Ram (P.W.1), Sardar (P.W.2), Kana Ram (P.W.3), Lala Ram (P.W.4), Ram Charan (P.W.5), Chaina Ram (P.W.14) and Harji Ram (P.W.15). 8. Alongwith the evidence of eyewitnesses named above, in the present case medical evidence which has emerged in the testimony of Dr. Ajay Gupta (P.W.8) and Dr. Mahendra Agrawal (P.W.9) assume importance. Before we revert to the ocular version, it will be necessary to notice the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the present case, as a result of consultations and deliberations, witnesses have exaggerated the version. They have introduced numbers of accused and they have also introduced weapons. It is submitted that the witnesses have testified that all the accused when Ram Kishan was lying fallen beneath the tractor caused injuries. It is further submitted that the witnesses have stated that the accused made an effort to run over the tractor upon the deceased in the earlier part of the occurrence and thereafter, he turned the tractor and came rushing towards the deceased. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that if the medical evidence and improbabilities of the prosecution version are taken into consideration, it will be apparent that the witnesses have concocted the version to secure the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It is further submitted that the implicit reliance cannot be placed upon the eyewitness account. It is contended that by introducing occurrence in two parts, an ordinary case of accident has been assigned pattern of murder case. 11. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have contended that it is a pre-planned murder. It is submitted that soon before the occurrence, the incident had taken place between Manaram and Harjiram(PW.15), who is uncle of Ram Kishan deceased. It is further submitted that earlier also FIR (Exhibit-P/24) bearing No. 30/2011 was registered at Police Station Dudu for the offences under Sections 341, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, wherein accused had made an attempt to cause murder by following same modus operandi. 12. First we shall take note of the ocular version. 13. 12. First we shall take note of the ocular version. 13. Chhotu Ram (P.W.1) in the court deposed that he is resident of village Padasoli. He is running a shop of motor parts. This witness stated that his brother Raichand had contested election to the post of Sarpanch. Ram Narayan had also contested the election but he had lost the same. This witness stated that on 28.10.2011 at 3:00 PM, one person informed him that at Dhaba, a fight had taken place. This witness went to Dhaba and found that Chunaram, Harjiram, Manaram and Kartar were present at Dhaba. Harjiram informed that he had cut a branch of babool tree. Harjiram had asked for jelly and Axe from Manaram, upon which Manaram had given slap to Harjiram. Upon which, 5-10 persons sent Manaram and Kartar towards the college. Around tractor, Manaram, Kartar, Ram Narayan, Hari Narayan and Chainaram gathered. Ram Narayan was giving them signal with hands. Manaram was driving the tractor. He turned the tractor, coaccused were sitting on Mudguard. Harjiram and Chainaram were standing. Accused made an attempt to hit them. Harjiram and Chainaram went behind the Babool tree. Ram Kishan was standing on the ridge of field of Gopal. Manaram took the tractor with speed and hit Ram Kishan. Ram Kishan fell in the field of Gopal. Ram Kishan was run over by all the three tyres of tractor alongwith trolley. The trolley was empty. 14. Later this witness i.e. Chhotu Ram (P.W.1) stated that "Ram Kishan was coming on motorcycle when he was hit by a tractor." 15. We find that all the remaining eyewitnesses namely Sardar (P.W.2), Kana Ram (P.W.3), Lala Ram (P.W.4), Ram Charan (P.W.5), Chaina Ram (P.W.14) and Harji Ram (P.W.15) in same breath have reiterated the version given by Chhotu Ram (P.W.1). 16. Dr. Ajay Gupta (P.W.8) and Mahendra Agrawal (P.W.9) proved Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/10). In the post mortem report, it was stated that Ram Kishan suffered fracture of 5th, 6th , 7 th, 8th and 9th ribs of the right side of chest. There were multiple tears in right pleura and left pleura was healthy. There was lacerated wound of size 7x3xbone deep on antero-medial surface of upper part of right leg with contusion of tissue in surrounding area. Abrasion of size 6x2 cm was present on the right anteriosuperior Iliac spine region. There were multiple tears in right pleura and left pleura was healthy. There was lacerated wound of size 7x3xbone deep on antero-medial surface of upper part of right leg with contusion of tissue in surrounding area. Abrasion of size 6x2 cm was present on the right anteriosuperior Iliac spine region. Abrasion of size 2x2 cm was found on dorsal surface of left hand. Multiple abrasions in size from 2x1 cm to 1x1 cm with contusion were present on right scapular region. Multiple abrasions in size from 2x1 cm to 1x1 cm with contusion were also present on right lower part of the back region. 17. A perusal of the injuries reveal that except one abrasion which was on the left hand, all injuries are present on the right side of body of deceased. There was fracture of 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9 th ribs on the right side of chest. There were multiple tears in right pleura and left pleura was healthy. Therefore, the story that three tyres of the tractor ran over the body of Ram Kishan is not justifiable from the medical evidence as all the injuries are present on the right part of body and there is only one abrasion on left hand. 18. Dr. Ajay Gupta (P.W.8) in cross-examination stated that there was no crush injury present on the body of Ram Kishan deceased. Similar statement has surfaced in the deposition of Dr. Mahendra Agrawal (P.W.9). 19. Therefore, from the medical evidence we are convinced that the witnesses have exaggerated the version by saying that the accused ran over the tractor alongwith trolley on the dead body of Ram Kishan and three tyres had passed over the body. Had the three tyres passed over the body of deceased, the injuries would have been present on all over the body of deceased Ram Kishan. If we take the circumference and diameter of the tractor and size of rear tyre of the tractor, then injuries ought to have been present on all the parts of the body of deceased Ram Kishan. It seems that when the tractor hit the motorcycle, the deceased Ram Kishan fell on the right side and suffered injuries. Abrasions on the right side of the body of deceased justify the collision of the tractor with the motorcycle. 20. It seems that when the tractor hit the motorcycle, the deceased Ram Kishan fell on the right side and suffered injuries. Abrasions on the right side of the body of deceased justify the collision of the tractor with the motorcycle. 20. Having noted that the medical evidence belie the ocular version, we will notice the various parts of the eyewitnesses account, which on the touchstone of the probabilities cannot stand judicial scrutiny. 21. Eyewitnesses have introduced that Manaram, Kartar, Ram Narayan, Hari Narayan and Chainaram gathered around the tractor. They have stated that Manaram was driving the tractor. In the written report (Exhibit-P/1) it was stated that Ram Narayan, Kartar, Chainaram and Hari Narayan were sitting on the tractor armed with weapons. Ram Narayan, Chainaram and Hari Narayan have not been sent for the trial by the investigating agency. Thus, there is merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that in a case of ordinary accident, witnesses have introduced four other persons as accused namely Ram Narayan, Kartar, Chainaram and Hari Narayan. It is stated by the witnesses that after the tractor ran over the body of Ram Kishan, accused Ram Narayan, Kartar, Chainaram and Hari Narayan alighted from the tractor and caused injuries with weapons. The witnesses have stated that axe injury was caused to Ram Kishan deceased. However, no incised injury has been found on the body of deceased Ram Kishan. In fact, no injury caused by weapon has been found on the body of deceased. 22. Thus, we find that the witnesses have gone to the extent of inflating number of accused by assigning weapons to all the four accused. They have further gone to the extent of attributing injuries to accused caused by weapons, which are not borne from the medical evidence. The witnesses, who can go to such an extent, cannot be believed regarding the first part of occurrence that soon before the occurrence, there was an altercation between Manaram and Harji Ram (P.W.15). The incident that Manaram gave slap to Harji Ram (P.W.15) has not been stated in the FIR. It was introduced later to attribute motive. 23. Furthermore, it was stated that when Harjiram and Chainaram were standing, accused made an attempt to run over the tractor over them and they stood behind the babool tree. The incident that Manaram gave slap to Harji Ram (P.W.15) has not been stated in the FIR. It was introduced later to attribute motive. 23. Furthermore, it was stated that when Harjiram and Chainaram were standing, accused made an attempt to run over the tractor over them and they stood behind the babool tree. It is stated that the accused took a turn and went towards Ram Kishan, who was standing on the ridge of field of Gopal. Both the above said statements made by the witnesses stand demolished by the gains made by defence in the cross-examination. 24. Chhotu Ram (P.W.1) in examination-in-chief itself stated that Ram Kishan was coming on motorcycle when tractor hit him. The exact words stated by this witness are as under:- 25. The above said portion from the examination-in-chief of Chhotu Ram (P.W.1) demolish the exaggeration that Ram Kishan was standing on the ridge of the field of Gopal. Chhotu Ram (P.W.1) in cross-examination stated that Ram Kishan came suddenly. He came at 3:00 PM without any information. It will be apposite here to reproduce the following portion from the crossexamination of Chhotu Ram (P.W.1), as under:- 26. Harjiram (P.W.15) stated that he is not aware as to how Ram Kishan came and from where he came. 27. Strained relations can be double edged weapon. In the present case, after the accident took place, the relations became strained and story of previous enmity was created, which is not borne by any document. There is no previous FIR or complaint filed between the parties. No document has been produced on record from which we infer that before the occurrence, relations between the parties were not cordial. 28. The witnesses, as a result of consultations and deliberations or believing that the accident was for some motive, have taken the recourse to fiction and imagination. 29. It is a case, wherein we have been rightly called upon and we do believe that we ought to sift the grain from the chaff. Number of facts introduced by the prosecution witnesses by adding spice are required to be dis-accounted. 30. Taking numerous circumstances narrated by us, we are of the view that implicit reliance cannot be placed upon the eyewitness account to arrive at a conclusion that it was a case of pre-planned hitting of motorcycle by the appellant Manaram. Number of facts introduced by the prosecution witnesses by adding spice are required to be dis-accounted. 30. Taking numerous circumstances narrated by us, we are of the view that implicit reliance cannot be placed upon the eyewitness account to arrive at a conclusion that it was a case of pre-planned hitting of motorcycle by the appellant Manaram. At best, it is a case of accident, where due to collision of tractor with motorcycle, Ram Kishan fell and suffered injuries and died. Therefore, we acquit the appellants of offence under Section 302/34 IPC by holding appellant Manaram guilty of offence under Section 304-A IPC. 31. Consequently, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. 32. As a result thereof, life imprisonment awarded upon appellants is set aside. We hold Manaram appellant guilty of offence under Section 304-A IPC. Appeal of appellant Kartar is accepted and he is acquitted. Accused Manaram is awarded sentence of two years RI. He is further directed to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default thereof he shall undergo one year RI. The fine so realized shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. 33. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.