Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2141 (RAJ)

Ramroop v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-08

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 376 dated 17.06.2008 registered at Police Station Gangapur City, District Sawaimadhopur under Section 302 and 201 IPC. 2. Prosecution story, in-brief, as per the FIR is that Padam Singh, son of complainant Dharm Singh, was working in Shree Ram Hostel for the last three years. On 08.06.2008 his son had been murdered by Ramroop, who was running a hostel. On 08.06.2008, during the night, appellant had brought the dead body of Padam Singh to the village of the complainant. When the complainant enquired from the appellant about the cause of death of his son, appellant left the spot on his jeep without telling him anything. About a year back, Padam Singh had given Rs. 30,000/- to the appellant for providing him a job. However, the said amount had not been returned by the appellant to Padam Singh. Due to this reason appellant had committed the murder of Padam Singh. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. 4. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302 and 201 IPC. Appellant did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twenty three witnesses, during trial. 6. Appellant when examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), after close of prosecution evidence, prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. In-fact there was a dispute between the deceased and his brother Kunji Lal with regard to mobile phone. Deceased had left on a motorcycle under the influence of liquor. 7. Appellant appeared in the witness box as DW-1. 8. Trial Court vide impugned judgment/order dated 16.01.2015 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. In-fact appellant Padam Singh had died on account of consumption of excessive liquor. Appellant had brought the deceased to his house (Gangapur City). In case, the appellant had committed the murder of Padam Singh there was no occasion for him to bring the dead body of Padam Singh to his (deceased) house. In-fact deceased was driving a motorcycle under the influence of liquor and had suffered injuries. Appellant had brought the deceased to his house (Gangapur City). In case, the appellant had committed the murder of Padam Singh there was no occasion for him to bring the dead body of Padam Singh to his (deceased) house. In-fact deceased was driving a motorcycle under the influence of liquor and had suffered injuries. Injuries on the person of the deceased are abrasions and bruises. The delay in lodging the FIR was not explained by the prosecution. Deceased had a dispute with his brother in connection with mobile phone. Complainant as well as his wife have deposed in their statements that deceased had suffered a knife injury but the said assertion was belied by the medical evidence. 10. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal. 11. Present case, relates to murder of Padam Singh. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brajendrasingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2012 SC 1552 as under:- "There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility that the accused has committed the crime. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the Court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the Court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The Court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial." 12. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab 1980 (2) SCC 684 , as under:- "In the light of the above conspectus, we will now consider the effect of the aforesaid legislative changes on the authority and efficacy of the propositions laid down by this Court in Jagmohan's case. These propositions may be summed up as under: (i) The general legislative policy that underlies the structure of our criminal law, principally contained in the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, is to define an offence with sufficient clarity and to prescribe only the maximum punishment therefore, and to allow a very wide discretion to the Judge in the matter of fixing the degree of punishment. With the solitary exception of Section 303, the same policy permeates Section 302 and some other sections of the Penal Code, where me maximum punishment is the death penalty, (ii) (a) No exhaustive enumeration of aggravating or mitigating circumstances which should be considered when sentencing an offender, is possible. "The infinite variety of cases and facets to each case would make general standards either meaningless 'boiler plate' or a statement of the obvious that no Jury (Judge) would need." (Referred to McGantha v. California, (1971) 402 US 183 (b) The impossibility of laying down standards is at the very core of the criminal law as administered in India which invests the Judges with a very wide discretion in the matter of fixing the degree of punishment. (iii) The view taken by the plurality in Furman v. Georgia decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, to the effect, that a law which gives uncontrolled and un-guided discretion to the Jury (or the Judge) to choose arbitrarily between a sentence of death and imprisonment for a capital offence, violates the Eighth Amendment, is not applicable in India. We do not have in out Constitution any provision like the Eighth Amendment, nor are we at liberty to apply the test of reasonableness with the freedom with which the Judges of the Supreme Court of America are accustomed to apply "the due process" clause. There are grave doubts about the expediency of transplanting western experience in our country. Social conditions are different and so also the general intellectual level. Arguments which would be valid in respect of one area of the world may not hold good in respect of another area. (iv) (a) This discretion in the matter of sentence is to be exercised by the Judge judicially, after balancing all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the crime. (b) The discretion is liable to be corrected by superior courts. The exercise of judicial discretion on well-recognised principles is, in the final analysis, the safest possible safeguard for the accused. In view of the above, it will be impossible to say that there would be at all any discrimination, since crime as crime may appear to be superficially the same but the facts and circumstances of a crime are widely different Thus considered, the provision in Section 302, Penal Code is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground that it confers on the Judges an un-guided and uncontrolled discretion in the matter of awarding capital punishment or imprisonment for life. (v) (a) Relevant facto and circumstances Impinging on the nature and circumstances of the crime can be brought before the Court at the pre-conviction stage, notwithstanding the fact that no formal procedure for producing evidence regarding such facto and circumstances had been specifically provided. When counsel addresses the Court with regard to the character and standing of the accused, they are duly considered by the Court unless there is something in the evidence itself which belies him or the Public Prosecutor challenges the facts. When counsel addresses the Court with regard to the character and standing of the accused, they are duly considered by the Court unless there is something in the evidence itself which belies him or the Public Prosecutor challenges the facts. (b) It is to be emphasised that in exercising its discretion to choose either of the two alternative sentences provided in Section 302, Penal Code, "the Court is principally concerned with the facts and circumstances Whether aggravating or mitigating, which are connected with the particular crime under inquiry. All such facts and circumstances are capable of being proved in accordance With the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act in a trial regulated by the Cr.P.C. The trial does not come to an end until all the relevant facts are proved and the counsel on both sides have an opportunity to address the Court. The only thing that remains is for the Judge to decide on the guilt and punishment and that is what Sections 306(2) and 309(2), Cr.P.C. purport to provide for. These provisions are part of the procedure established by law and unless it is shown that they are invalid for any other reasons they must be regarded as valid. No reasons are offered to show that they are constitutionally invalid and hence the death sentence imposed after trial in accordance with the procedure established by law is not tin-constitutional under Article 21." 13. Complainant while appearing in the witness-box as PW-1 deposed as per the contents of the FIR. In his cross-examination he admitted that smell of liquor was coming from the clothes of the deceased. He also admitted that as per custom the dead body is given a bath and thereafter it is taken for cremation purposes. Clothes of the deceased are also changed before the cremation. 14. P.W. 5-Gulkandi, mother of the deceased, has corroborated the statement of the complainant. 15. PW-7 Birma Devi, maternal-aunt of the deceased, has deposed that appellant had murdered Padam Singh. She deposed that deceased was the son of her sister. Ramroop was residing in her house and had opened a hostel. Ramroop was giving Rs. 35,000/- as rent to her. Padam Singh also started residing in the hostel with Ramroop. About fifteen months back Ramroop had come to her house in the morning and had told her that Padam Singh had died. Ramroop was residing in her house and had opened a hostel. Ramroop was giving Rs. 35,000/- as rent to her. Padam Singh also started residing in the hostel with Ramroop. About fifteen months back Ramroop had come to her house in the morning and had told her that Padam Singh had died. Then she went with Ramroop and saw that the dead body of Padam Singh was lying in a jeep and two persons were also sitting in the jeep. However, in her cross-examination she deposed that she had not seen the appellant committing the murder of Padam Singh. 16. PW-9 Luxmikant Sharma deposed that he was running a private clinic. About 15 moths back at 9:30 p.m., a person came in a jeep and said that he wanted to show a patient to him. The patient was lying on the seat of the jeep. When he checked the person lying in the jeep, he found that the said person was already dead. He told to the jeep driver to go to a government hospital. 17. PW-11 Govind Sahay deposed that on 08.06.2008 at about 9:45 p.m., he received a phone call from Ramroop that Padam Singh was in a serious condition and he was taking him to private doctor in the grain-market. Thereafter, Ramroop informed him that Padam Singh had died. Thereafter, appellant met him in the vehicle in which the dead body of Padam Singh was lying. Then they all went to the house of Padam Singh. In his cross-examination he admitted that when they were taking the dead body of Padam Singh in the vehicle, it was smelling of liquor. 18. P.W. 12-Smt. Jagan Bai, maternal-aunt of the deceased deposed that about one and a half year back her husband had received a phone call at about 10/11 p.m., from Ramroop. They were informed by Ramroop that Padam Singh was ill and he was taking Padam Singh to Doctor. Thereafter, they again got a phone call from Ramroop that he had shown Padam Singh to the Doctor. Then they saw that dead body of Padam Singh was lying in a jeep. In the vehicle Birma Devi was also sitting. Then they took the dead body of Padam Singh to his house at Gangapur City. 19. P.W. 13-Shravan deposed that Padam Singh was his nephew. Then they saw that dead body of Padam Singh was lying in a jeep. In the vehicle Birma Devi was also sitting. Then they took the dead body of Padam Singh to his house at Gangapur City. 19. P.W. 13-Shravan deposed that Padam Singh was his nephew. About four years back Padam Singh had told him that he had given Rs. 15,000/- to Ramroop to get a job. Padam Singh had taken Rs. 15,000/- from him but he had not provided him a job. Then Padam Singh started residing with Ramroop. On the day of incident when he returned home, he was told that Padam Singh had gone to Gangapur City. His brother-in-law Govind Sahay told him on a phone call that Padam Singh had consumed something and Ramroop had taken him to a Doctor. After 10-15 minutes he came to know from Govind Sahay that Padam Singh had died. 20. P.W. 14--Kunjilal deposed that Padam was his elder brother. About 2 years back Padam Singh had been murdered by Ramroop. Ramroop had opened a hostel in the house of his maternal-aunt Birma Devi. Due to this reason Padam Singh was in contact with Ramroop and he started residing in the hostel. Padam Singh had given Rs. 30,000/- to Ramroop on the pretext that he would get him a job. However, Ramroop had neither returned Rs. 30,000/- nor he had provided him a job. On 08.06.2008 he had met Padam along with Dinesh in the hostel. They inquired from Ramroop about Padam Singh and Ramroop told him that Padam Singh was lying in an intoxicated condition. They saw that Padam Singh was lying on a cot. Then they left the spot. In the evening, he came to know that Padam Singh had died. Padam Singh was bleeding from his nose and there was a mark of strangulation around his neck. 21. PW-16 Dr. S.N. Sharma deposed that on 09.06.2008 he had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Padam Singh. He proved the Post Mortem Examination report Ex. P9. The other witnesses deposed with regard to the investigation conducted in the case. 22. Thus, in the present case prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. Motive set up by the prosecution is that deceased Padam Singh had given Rs. 30,000/- to the appellant for providing him a job. He proved the Post Mortem Examination report Ex. P9. The other witnesses deposed with regard to the investigation conducted in the case. 22. Thus, in the present case prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. Motive set up by the prosecution is that deceased Padam Singh had given Rs. 30,000/- to the appellant for providing him a job. Deceased had neither been provided a job nor the said amount had been returned by the appellant to him. 23. P.W. 7-Birma Devi in her cross-examination deposed that she had not seen the appellant committing the murder of Padam Singh. They had not found anybody in whose presence appellant had murdered Padam Singh. According to her Ramroop had committed the murder of Padam Singh because he had taken Rs. 30,000/- from him on the pretext of providing him a job. She did not know as to when the said amount was paid to the appellant but her sister had told her that Rs. 30,000/- had been paid by Padam Singh to the appellant for providing him a job. 24. Investigating Officer-P.W. 19 in his cross-examination deposed that in the Panchayatnama (EX. P2) it was not mentioned by the complainant party that appellant had taken any money from the deceased on the pretext of providing him a job or that appellant had inflicted injuries to the deceased. Rather investigating Officer has stated in his cross-examination that it was correct that there was a dispute between the deceased and his brother Kunjilal with regard to mobile phone. He also admitted that deceased had taken the motorcycle of the appellant. He also admitted that brother of the deceased had visited him in the hostel on a day prior to the incident and there was a dispute between them relating to mobile phone. 25. P.W. 1 during trial deposed that Rs. 30,000/- had been paid to Ramroop by Padam Singh about three years back for providing him a job. But the said fact was not mentioned in Ex. Dl. Moreover, Padam Singh was residing with Ramroop in the hostel run by the appellant. It appears that the factum of motive that the deceased had paid Rs. 30,000/- to the appellant has been later falsely introduced by the prosecution to strengthen its case. 26. P.W. 14-Kunji Lal, brother of the deceased had appeared in the witness-box as P.W. 14. Dl. Moreover, Padam Singh was residing with Ramroop in the hostel run by the appellant. It appears that the factum of motive that the deceased had paid Rs. 30,000/- to the appellant has been later falsely introduced by the prosecution to strengthen its case. 26. P.W. 14-Kunji Lal, brother of the deceased had appeared in the witness-box as P.W. 14. He has also stated in his examination-in-chief that on the day of incident he had gone to meet his brother in the hostel and he had seen that he was lying on a cot. When he went to meet his brother he was told by the appellant that his brother lying in an intoxicated condition. 27. P.W. 16-Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination deposed in his cross-examination deposed that foul smell was coming from the stomach of the deceased and same could be a result of liquor. He also stated that injury numbers 1 to 7 were ante-mortem and could be a result of accident. He also admitted that death of the deceased was not on account of strangulation. 28. Thus, the version putforth by the PW-14 that there was a strangulation mark on the neck of the deceased is belied by the medical evidence. 29. The parents of the deceased have alleged that deceased had suffered knife injury but the said fact is also belied by the medical evidence. 30. The death of the Padam Singh had occurred in the intervening night of 08/06/2008 and 09.06.2008. Post mortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 09.06.2008. As per Ex. Dl report lodged by the father of the deceased, he had been told by the appellant that the deceased had committed suicide. Report under section 174 Cr.P.C. was prepared but the FIR was lodged by the complainant on 17.06.2008. There is no valid explanation by the complainant with regard to delay in lodging the FIR. 31. It appears that in the present case FIR has been lodged against the appellant merely on the basis of suspicion. It is settled proposition of law that suspicion, howsoever strong cannot take place of proof. Motive alleged by the complainant attributed to the appellant with regard to the commission of murder of the deceased by him is also shaky. 32. Appellant had immediately informed Birma Devi-P.W. 7 about the condition of Padam Singh. It is settled proposition of law that suspicion, howsoever strong cannot take place of proof. Motive alleged by the complainant attributed to the appellant with regard to the commission of murder of the deceased by him is also shaky. 32. Appellant had immediately informed Birma Devi-P.W. 7 about the condition of Padam Singh. There is no dispute that deceased was residing in the hostel run by the appellant. Appellant had taken deceased to a private doctor for treatment but Padam Singh was declared dead by the doctor who has been examined during trial Appellant had taken the dead body of the deceased to his house in Gangapur City. Appellant has been involved in this case by the complainant party merely on the basis of suspicion by introducing motive after unexplained delay of eight days. 33. Thus, in the present case, prosecution story is doubtful. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence prosecution is required to complete the chain of circumstances leading towards the guilt of the accused and negate the possibility of his innocence. However, in the present case, circumstances brought on record fail to lead to the conclusion towards the guilt of the appellant and the possibility that he is innocent cannot be ruled out. 34. Accordingly appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment/order dated 16.01.2015 passed by the trial Court are set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him by giving him benefit of doubt. Appellant who is in custody, be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. 35. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.