Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1957 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-15

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 83 dated 10.3.2000 registered at Police Station Neemka Thana, District Sikar under Sections 147, 148, 149, 224, 225, 307, 353, 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959. Offence under Section 302 IPC was added later on account of death of victim Ram Sharan. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.3.2000, accused Birbal was being taken to the Court at Neemka Thana in connection with FIR No. 118/95 alongwith Ram Sharan-Constable by the complainant Ashok Kumar. When they reached near a Temple, two vehicles came to the spot. Birbal on seeing the Jeeps tried to run towards the Jeep. There were about 8-10 persons and two ladies in the Jeep excluding the driver. Ladies and the men got down from the Jeep. The said persons included brother and nephews of the accused Birbal. The said persons stated that the guards be killed and Birbal be rescued. He had held Birbal accused, but he was got released from him by giving him a sword blow on his hand. One person was armed with a gun, whereas, others were armed with swords. The person who was armed with a gun, fired at Ram Sharan-Constable and the other persons attacked him with swords. As a result, Ram Sharan fell down and started bleeding. Thereafter, the said persons left with accused Birbal in their vehicle. Ram Sharan was removed to the hospital. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against appellant Shankar Lal and accused Naruram @ Nahariya, Gopal, Amar Singh, Arjun Lal, Khem Chand, Prabhati @ Prabho and Gulabi Devi. Supplementary challan was presented against accused Mukesh @ Suriya @ Sheonarayan and Birbal. 4. Charges were framed against appellant Shankar Lal and accused Naruram @ Nahariya, Gopal, Amar Singh, Arjun Lal, Khem Chand, Prabhati @ Prabho, Gulabi Devi, Mukesh @ Suriya @ Sheonarayan and Birbal under Sections 147, 148, 149, 224, 225/120B, 302/120B, 307, 353 and 120B and Section 7/27 of Arms Act, 1959. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. During trial, accused Arjun Lal and Naruram @ Nahariya died and accused Amar Singh and Mukesh @ Sundya were declared Juvenile and were sent for trial before Juvenile Justice Board. Accused Gopal absconded during trial. 6. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. During trial, accused Arjun Lal and Naruram @ Nahariya died and accused Amar Singh and Mukesh @ Sundya were declared Juvenile and were sent for trial before Juvenile Justice Board. Accused Gopal absconded during trial. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 56 witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. prayed that he was innocent. Accused did not examine any witness in their defence. 7. Trial court vide judgment dated 12.7.2018 ordered the acquittal of accused Prabhati @ Prabho, Gulabi Devi, Khem Chand and Surya @ Sheonarayan. Vide judgment dated 12.7.2018, appellant Shankar was convicted and sentenced under Section 148, 353, 302/149, 302/120B, 225/120B IPC and appellant Birbal was convicted and sentenced under Section 302, 224, 225 read with Section 120B IPC. Hence, present appeal by appellant Shankar Lal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. FIR was registered on 10.3.2000, whereas, copy was sent to the Magistrate on 13.3.2000. Appellant was not named in the FIR. Investigation in the present case, had been conducted in a tainted manner with a view to falsely involve the appellant in this case. No test identification parade was got conducted to establish the identity of the appellant. 9. Learned State Counsel has opposed the appeal. 10. Present case relates to murder of Constable-Ram Sharan while he was performing his official duty. Constable-Ram Sharan alongwith complainant Ashok Kumar PW-3 were taking accused Birbal to the Court with regard to a hearing in the case registered against him. However, Birbal was got rescued from the police custody by the accused. In the incident, Constable-Ram Sharan suffered injuries and died. Case rests on eye witness account. 11. Star witness of the prosecution is PW-3 Ashok Kumar. PW-3 deposed that on 10.3.2000, he alongwith Constable Ram Sharan were taking accused Birbal to the Court in connection with his hearing in a case. When they reached near a temple, close to the court complex, two vehicles came there. One Jeep was driven by Shanker Lal. Arjun, Sunda, Bawariya, Gopal, Khem Chand, Amar Singh alongwith driver got down from the said Jeep. Bawariya was armed with a sword and Sunda was armed with 12 bore gun. The said persons stated that Birbal be got rescued and the guards be killed. One Jeep was driven by Shanker Lal. Arjun, Sunda, Bawariya, Gopal, Khem Chand, Amar Singh alongwith driver got down from the said Jeep. Bawariya was armed with a sword and Sunda was armed with 12 bore gun. The said persons stated that Birbal be got rescued and the guards be killed. Gopal gave a sword blow to him and as a result, accused got released from his hand. Ram Sharan caught hold of accused Birbal and threw him on the ground. Sunda fired at Ram Sharan. As a result, Birbal ran and sat in the vehicle. The vehicle was driven by Shankar Lal. Accused fled away from the spot. He could not tell about other vehicle and the persons sitting in the said vehicle. He took Ram Sharan to the hospital. However, Ram Sharan succumbed to his injuries. 12. Complainant had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case. PW-3 Ashok Kumar was cross examined at length but his testimony with regard to the involvement of the appellant in the crime could not be shaken. Hence the statement of PW-3 Ashok Kumar with regard to the involvement of the appellant in the crime inspires confidence. 13. PW-36 Doctor S.K. Meena proved the postmortem examination report of deceased Ram Sharan as Exhibit P-58. A perusal of Exhibit P-58 reveals that the cause of death of the deceased was haemorrhagic shock due to injury to blood vessels of left thigh caused by antemortem gun shot injury. 14. Thus, the ocular version is duly corroborated by medical evidence. Although, in the present case, appellant is not named in the FIR but Exhibit D-5 is the statement of complainant recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 10.3.2000 itself. A perusal of the said statement reveals that the complainant has stated that the vehicle was being driven by appellant Shankar Lal in which accused Birbal managed to escape. Hence, the possibility that the appellant had been falsely involved in this case, is ruled out because the name of appellant Shankar Lal was disclosed by the complainant on the same day of the incident. 15. Appellant was driving the vehicle in which accused Birbal managed to escape from the police custody. Hence, the possibility that the appellant had been falsely involved in this case, is ruled out because the name of appellant Shankar Lal was disclosed by the complainant on the same day of the incident. 15. Appellant was driving the vehicle in which accused Birbal managed to escape from the police custody. In the incident, Constable-Ram Sharan, who was taking accused Birbal to the court for hearing in a case, suffered firearm injury at the hands of the co-accused of appellant Shankar Lal and died on account of injuries suffered by him. Jeep used at the time of commission of offence was recovered at the instance of the appellant Shankar Lal. 16. In the facts of the present case, the intention of the accused, in conspiracy with each other, to commit murder of Constable-Ram Sharan is clearly established. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR had reached Magistrate after a delay, fails to advance case of the appellant because from the material on record, it cannot be said that the said delay had been used to change the contents of the FIR or introduce a false version. Moreover, FIR was registered on the same day after the incident and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination on the same day which was conducted at 5 p.m. 17. There is no force in the argument raised by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant was liable to be acquitted as no test identification parade was got conducted to establish his identity. Appellant had been duly named by PW-3 Ashok Kumar in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Hence, the fact that the test identification parade of the appellant was not got conducted, loses its significance. 18. Learned trial court rightly held that the prosecution had been successful in establishing its case against appellant Shankar Lal and his involvement in the crime beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 19. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment/order dated 12.7.2018 passed by the trial Court are upheld.