Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1912 (RAJ)

Ramu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-05

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide the judgment dated 20.01.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 94/2016 (51/2013) (Computer No. 280/14):- Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 498-A IPC 3 Years' Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 10,000/- 1 Month's R.I. Section 304-B, 304-B/34 IPC 10 Years' Rigorous Imprisonment - - Section 302, 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 25000/- 6 Months' R.I. 2. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 4. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the instant appeal are noted here-in-below:- Smt. Jasoda D/o Shri Bhanwarlal Meghwal was married to the appellant Mani Ram about three years prior to the incident. She had a five months girl child, as on the date of incident. Smt. Jasoda was admitted at the Government Hospital, Jayal on 04.04.2013 where she gave a Parcha Bayan (Ex. P/21) to Shri Bharat Singh, SHO PS Jayal alleging that on the previous night, her mother-in-law Dhapudi and father-in-law Ramu Ram had quarrelled with her. Her father had called in the night upon which, her husband Mani Ram gave the phone to her so that she could talk to her father. On this, her father-in-law and mother-in-law became enraged and told her husband as to why he had given his phone to her. Her husband also used to quarrel and harass her. In the morning, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband poured kerosene on her and set her to fire. The third year of her marriage with Mani Ram was running. Soon after her marriage, her matrimonial relatives started harassing her. She was at her husband's house for the last five-six months. She was set to fire in the morning at about 6 O' clock after being harassed for dowry demand. 5. On the basis of this Parcha Bayan (Ex. P/21), an FIR No. 58/2013 (Ex. P/31) was registered at the Police Station Jayal, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 498-A & 307 IPC. Smt. Jasoda was referred to Jodhpur and was admitted in the Female Burn Ward, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur where on the requisition of the IO and after taking a fitness certificate from the treating medical officer, Dr. Dinesh Dutt Sharma (PW. P/31) was registered at the Police Station Jayal, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 498-A & 307 IPC. Smt. Jasoda was referred to Jodhpur and was admitted in the Female Burn Ward, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur where on the requisition of the IO and after taking a fitness certificate from the treating medical officer, Dr. Dinesh Dutt Sharma (PW. 27), Shri Akhilesh Kalyan, Metropolitan Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur Metro (PW. 28), recorded the dying declaration (Ex. P/35) of Smt. Jasoda under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 05.04.2013. In this statement, Smt. Jasoda stated that she had been married to Mani Ram about three years ago. She was having a girl child named Mamta, aged five months. Her mother-in-law Dhapu, father-in-law Ramu Ram, Nandoi Shriram, Nanad Raju and husband Mani Ram used to pressurize her for bringing money from her father's house. She brought money once from there but the accused were not satisfied. All five poured kerosene on her and set her to fire in the morning at about 5 O' clock. The kerosene was lying at home. All of them beat her up, poured kerosene and set her to fire. The fire was doused by two females from the neighbourhood; one being a Harijan and the other being a Jat. She was taken to the hospital by her father. When the incident took place, her 14 years old Devar and Nanad were in the house but they did not wake up. Smt. Jasoda expired on 08.04.2013 while undergoing treatment at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. The dead body was subjected to postmortem by a Medical Board which issued the postmortem report (Ex. P/22) opining that the cause of death of Smt. Jasoda was septicemia as a result of excessive burns. After the death of Smt. Jasoda, the offence under Section 302 IPC was added to the case. All the three accused-appellants were arrested. Upon concluding investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against them for the offences under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B IPC. Since the offences were sessions triable, the case was committed and transferred to the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nagaur for trial. 6. By order dated 18.01.2014, the trial court framed charges against all the three accused-appellants for the above offences, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Since the offences were sessions triable, the case was committed and transferred to the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nagaur for trial. 6. By order dated 18.01.2014, the trial court framed charges against all the three accused-appellants for the above offences, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 28 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents in support of its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the prosecution allegations, the accused denied the same and claimed that they had been falsely implicated. Three witnesses were examined in defence. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and appreciating the evidence adduced on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants, as above. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned Counsel Shri R.S. Gill representing the appellants vehemently and fervently urged that the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial court is absolutely illegal and unjustified. All the material witnesses viz. Moolaram (PW. 1), Ramkunwar (PW. 2), Asuram (PW. 4), Gumanaram (PW. 5), Chenaram (PW. 6) (brother of the deceased), Omaram (PW. 7), Bhanwarlal (PW. 8) (father of the deceased), Saroj (PW. 9) (mother of the deceased), Shimbhu Singh (PW. 10), Doongardas (PW. 11) and Narayanram (PW. 18) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. He contended that the Parcha Bayan (Ex. P/21) of the deceased becomes highly suspicious in light of the evidence of PW. 20 Manglaram Poonia, SDM, Jayal who admitted in his cross-examination that there were cuttings in the Parcha Bayan (Ex. P/21) and that the injured was not able to speak because she was badly burnt. He contended that there is a grave discrepancy in the Parcha Bayan and the Dying Declaration (Ex. P/35) inasmuch, whilst in the Parcha Bayan only three persons were alleged to be the assailants whereas in the Dying Declaration recorded by the Magistrate, Smt. Jasoda also implicated her Nandoi Shriram and Nanad Raju as her assailants. He urged that the Investigating Officer did not find these two persons to be involved in the offence and thus, this discrepancy in the two statements of the deceased goes to the root of the matter. He urged that the Investigating Officer did not find these two persons to be involved in the offence and thus, this discrepancy in the two statements of the deceased goes to the root of the matter. He submitted that the possibility of the deceased having been tutored to give these statements cannot be ruled out because her parents were present beside her when both the statements (Parcha Bayan - Ex. P/21 and Dying Declaration - Ex. P/35) were recorded. He further submitted that when the postmortem was carried out on the body of the deceased, no smell of kerosene was emanating as per the evidence of the doctors and thus, as per him, the theory set up in these statements is belied by the medical evidence. He thus, implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused-appellants of the charges. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned defence counsel and urged that despite the fact that the material prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution story and were declared hostile, the Parcha Bayan (Ex. P/21) and Dying Declaration (Ex. P/35) are per se sufficient to affirm the guilt of the accused. He contended that the deceased had no occasion whatsoever to falsely implicate the accused for the ghastly assault made on her. On both the occasions, she gave an honest and faithful depiction of the incident stating with firm conviction that the accused-appellants poured kerosene on her and set her to fire. He alleged that as in both the statements which fall within the category of dying declarations, Smt. Jasoda has attributed specific allegations against the accused-appellants that they poured kerosene on her body and set her to fire and as these two statements were recorded in a fair, truthful and unbiased manner, the findings drawn up by the learned trial judge in the impugned judgment while convicting and sentencing the appellants in the manner above, do not warrant any interference. He thus, implored the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned judgment. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have re-appreciated and sifted the evidence available on record threadbare and carefully perused the impugned judgment. The following facts are admitted from the material available on record:- 1. He thus, implored the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned judgment. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have re-appreciated and sifted the evidence available on record threadbare and carefully perused the impugned judgment. The following facts are admitted from the material available on record:- 1. that Smt. Jasoda was married to the accused-appellant Mani Ram for about three years from the day of her unnatural death caused due to burning in the matrimonial home. 2. that Smt. Jasoda received burn injuries on 04.04.2013 at her matrimonial home and expired on 08.04.2013 while undergoing treatment at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. 3. that Dr. Ashwani Kumar (PW. 16) examined the deceased Smt. Jasoda at Government Hospital, Jayal and issued the injury report (Ex. P/19) wherein approximate surface area of the burns was reported to be 85%. This fact was also deposed by Dr. Kamlesh Purohit (PW. 21), Dr. Avdhesh Sharma (PW. 22) and Dr. Vivek Bhardwaj (PW. 23), the members of medical board who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Smt. Jasoda and issued the postmortem report (Ex. P/22). 4. that Smt. Jasoda made two depositions describing the manner in which she received the burn injuries. The first was the Parcha Bayan (Ex. P/21) recorded by PW. 26 Shri Bharat Singh, SHO, PS Jayal, District Nagaur on 04.04.2013 at 7:44 a.m. in which she levelled an allegation that she was set to fire by the three accused appellants after pouring kerosene on her body. The second deposition was made in the form of the dying declaration (Ex. P/35) recorded by PW. 28 Shri Akhilesh Kalyan, Metropolitan Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur in which she named two additional accused i.e., Nandoi Shriram and Nanad Raju as her assailants; and added that she was being harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home on account of demand of dowry. She stated that all the five accused poured kerosene on her body and set her to fire. 5. That none of the material prosecution witnesses including the parents and brother of the deceased supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. 6. That Shriram (Nandoi) and Raju (Nanad) who were named in the dying declaration (Ex. P/35) were not charge-sheeted. 10. We have minutely examined the statements of Chenaram (PW. 6). In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was married to Mani Ram's sister. 6. That Shriram (Nandoi) and Raju (Nanad) who were named in the dying declaration (Ex. P/35) were not charge-sheeted. 10. We have minutely examined the statements of Chenaram (PW. 6). In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was married to Mani Ram's sister. An exchange marriage relationship (aata-sata) existed between the parties inasmuch Jasoda's brother Chenaram was married to the sister of Mani Ram (accused). In his examination-in-chief as well as in his cross-examination, Chenaram admitted that Jasoda was not burnt by anyone and that people present at the spot apprised him of the fact that she got burnt because a burning kerosene chimney fell on her. However, on going through the site inspection plan (Ex. P/4), we do not find the existence of any kerosene chimney at the place where the deceased caught fire. 11. PW. 8 Bhanwarlal, being the father of the deceased Jasoda and PW. 9 Smt. Saroj, being her mother also did not support the prosecution case in their evidence. Thus, there is no direct evidence against the accused and the entire prosecution case rests upon the two dying declarations made by Smt. Jasoda. 12. Mr. Gill vehemently and fervently tried to impress upon the Court that no certificate was taken by the Judicial Magistrate regarding the deceased being in a fit condition to give the statement but on going through the evidence of Dr. Dinesh Dutt Sharma (PW. 27), it is clear that the Magistrate indeed procured a fitness certificate from the doctor and then proceeded to record the statement (Ex. P/35). The fitness certificate (Ex. P/33) was duly proved by the doctor in his testimony. 13. Now what remains to be seen is whether solely on the basis of these two dying declarations, the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC can be sustained. It becomes clear on going through both the Dying Declarations (Ex. P/21 & Ex. P/35) that the deceased made omnibus allegation against the appellants regarding she having been harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home for some valuables/money and also that she did not single out any accused for the act of pouring kerosene and setting her to fire. 14. While in the Parcha Bayan (Ex. P/21), the three appellants herein were the ones named as the assailants, the deceased made an improvement and named her Nandoi Shriram and Nanad Raju in the dying declaration (Ex. 14. While in the Parcha Bayan (Ex. P/21), the three appellants herein were the ones named as the assailants, the deceased made an improvement and named her Nandoi Shriram and Nanad Raju in the dying declaration (Ex. P/35) as the persons who set her to fire. Smt. Jasoda also stated that all the accused persons jointly poured kerosene on her and lit the fire. This version of the deceased is ex-facie unnatural and unbelievable because it is impossible to believe that three or five persons, as the case may be, would jointly pour the kerosene and setting the woman to fire. Smt. Jasoda categorically named her Nandoi Shriram and Nanad Raju as her assailants in the dying declaration (Ex. P/35). No distinct role has been assigned to any of the five accused named in the dying declaration (Ex. P/35) by Smt. Jasoda. Shriram and Raju were exonerated by the police and were not charge-sheeted. The trial court also did not take cognizance against them. Thus, obviously, the sanctity of dying declaration has been diluted. As a consequence, we are of the firm opinion that rather than it being a case of murder plain and simple, the facts give rise to an inference that Smt. Jasoda expired otherwise than under natural circumstances in the matrimonial home after having been harassed and humiliated on account of demand of dowry within a period of three years from her marriage. Having recorded this satisfaction, the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 302 IPC, as recorded by the trial court cannot be sustained. However, their conviction for the remaining charges i.e., the offence under Section 498-A and Section 304-B IPC does not warrant any interference whatsoever. The appeal thus, deserves acceptance in part. The impugned judgment is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent, the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in the alternative for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and they are acquitted of these charges. However, their conviction recorded by the trial court for the offences under Sections 304-B and in the alternative under Section 304-B/34 IPC and Section 498-A IPC is sustained. The appellant Ramuram was aged 67 years and Smt. Dhapu Devi was aged about 51 years on the date of incident. However, their conviction recorded by the trial court for the offences under Sections 304-B and in the alternative under Section 304-B/34 IPC and Section 498-A IPC is sustained. The appellant Ramuram was aged 67 years and Smt. Dhapu Devi was aged about 51 years on the date of incident. Thus, we reduce sentence of 10 years awarded to them by trial court for the charge under Section 304-B and in the alternative 304-B/34 IPC from 10 years' R.I. to 7 years' R.I. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. The accused-appellant Mani Ram being the husband of the deceased Smt. Jasoda was under an obligation to ensure well being of his wife Smt. Jasoda in the matrimonial home in which he failed. Thus, we affirm his conviction as recorded by the trial court for the charge under Section 304-B IPC and in the alternative 304-B/34 IPC and so also the sentence of 10 years R.I. awarded to him by the trial court. 15. We further direct that the District Legal Service Authority, Merta shall take up the matter under the Victim Compensation Scheme for grant maximum permissible compensation to the minor daughter of Smt. Jasoda through her maternal grandfather Shri Bhanwarlal S/o. Shri Muknaram Meghwal, R/o Khabriyana, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur. 16. The appeal is partly allowed in these terms.