Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2205 (RAJ)

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-19

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Goverdhan Bardhar, J. 1. Challenge in the instant criminal appeal has been made by the appellant to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7.2.2015 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chhabra, Distt. Baran [for short 'the learned trial Court'] in Sessions Case No. 125/2012, State of Rajasthan vs. Ramesh Kumar, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as under:- U/s. 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three years simple imprisonment. U/s. 394 IPC: Four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year simple imprisonment. U/s. 201 IPC: Four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year simple imprisonment. 2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Facts of the case in nutshell are that on 15.6.2012 at 10:00 a.m., the SHO Police Station, Chhabra received a telephonic information that on the way to Basant Vihar Colony of town Chhabra a dead body of an unknown person is lying. On receiving such information, Manoj Kumar Gupta, SHO along with other police personnel reached at the spot, where they found the dead body of an unknown person. Thereafter, the informant Muziburhrehman submitted a written report (Ex. P1). The police on finding the matter for the offences under sections 302 and 201 IPC, took the photographs of dead body and made inspection of place of incident. On 16.06.2012 the dead body was got medically examined by Medical Board. The police recovered the clothes and shoes of deceased. On the basis of same, on 17.06.2012 one Kally @ Kalu had identified the dead body to be of his elder brother Ramkishan. 4. On the basis of aforesaid written report (Ex. P1) FIR No. 251/2012 was registered at Police Station Chhabra, Distt. Baran for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 394 in the Court concerned. 5. Learned trial court framed charges against the accused appellant for the aforesaid offences. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of twenty seven witnesses and thirty documents were got exhibited. 5. Learned trial court framed charges against the accused appellant for the aforesaid offences. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of twenty seven witnesses and thirty documents were got exhibited. Thereafter, the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence the accused appellant did not examine any witness but two documents were got exhibited. The appellant aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court dated 7.2.2015 has preferred this criminal appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the accused appellant has argued that the Trial Court has committed serious error of law as well as of facts in convicting the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 394 and 201 IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. While appreciating the evidence in a criminal case, the Court should keep in view the two cardinal principles that the guilt against the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the burden on the accused is not so heavy to prove the plea taken by him as it lay on the prosecution. The burden can be discharged by the accused merely by showing the preponderance of probability in favour of the plea taken by him. There are several infirmities and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and therefore no reliance can be placed on the testimony of such witnesses. The accused-appellant has not been named in the FIR as an accused. He has no concern with the alleged crime and there is no evidence available on record to connect the accused-appellant with the crime. There is no direct evidence against the accused appellant to connect him with the alleged crime. The accused appellant has been implicated in this case on the basis of alleged recovery. The police has shown false recovery from the appellant, though the witnesses of recovery PW-8 Lokesh and PW-11 Kanhaiya did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the impugned judgment calls for no interference. The learned Public Prosecutor has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned judgment and examined the record. 9. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the impugned judgment calls for no interference. The learned Public Prosecutor has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned judgment and examined the record. 9. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. 10. The case was registered on the information of PW1-Muziburrehman that on the way to Basant Vihar, Chhabra, a dead body of an unknown person is lying. When the police reached the spot, PW1 submitted written report (Ex. P1). After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant for the offences under sections 302, 201 and 394 IPC. 11. PW4-Bholaram, PW5-Ramkalyan and PW6-Lokesh deposed that accused Ramesh Kumar and Ramkishan Meena (now deceased) came together on a motorcycle in Village Bawadikheda. They deposed that Ram Kishan Meena's daughter Kenibai was married in village Hanumatkheda but Kenibai was not happy with the marriage and therefore, after customary break down, her 'Nata' marriage was performed in village Parliya in lieu of settlement amount of Rupees one lakh received in the 'Nata' marriage. The money received on account of 'Nata' marriage was lying deposited with Ramkalyan-relative of Ram Kishan Meena (now deceased) at Bawadikheda. On 14.6.2012 Ramesh and Ramkishan went on motorbike to get the settlement amount of Rupees one lakh deposited with Ramkishan Meena at Village Bawadikheda. In the presence of Heeralal and Srikishan, Ramkalyan gave Rupees one lakh to Ramesh Jatav. Ramesh Jatav after counting the amount handed over the money to Ramkishan. Ramkishan kept the money in a towel and tied the towel around his waist. After receiving the amount both of them left for their village Kakarwan at about 8:00 p.m. 12. PW6-Heeralal deposed that at 9:00 p.m. he called Ramkishan on his cell phone and told him to give the phone to Ramkishan but Ramesh Jatav replied that they had reached Chhabra and Ramkishan could not talk as he was taking meals and thereafter disconnected the call. On the next day in the morning Bholaram and Srikishan reached Chhabra and then they came to know that Ramkishan had been killed. 13. PW12-Chhatar Singh deposed that accused and Ramkishan Meena (now deceased) went to Village Bawadikheda together on his motorcycle. He also got the information that Ramesh went to Villages Chhabra and Bawadikheda. On the next day in the morning Bholaram and Srikishan reached Chhabra and then they came to know that Ramkishan had been killed. 13. PW12-Chhatar Singh deposed that accused and Ramkishan Meena (now deceased) went to Village Bawadikheda together on his motorcycle. He also got the information that Ramesh went to Villages Chhabra and Bawadikheda. PW12 further deposed that Ramesh also told him that Ramkishan had also gone along-with him to Bawadikheda for getting payment from Ramkishan in connection with the settlement. PW9-Pushpa Bai, mother of PW12-Chhatar Singh also corroborated the testimony of PW12. 14. PW10-Raju who was a waiter in 'Dhaba' identified the person who came to take dinner in the 'Dhaba'. PW13-Bhagwan Singh, owner of 'Dhaba' deposed that entry regarding due payment was made in Ex. P17 (copy of hotel register). 15. Post-mortem report (Ex. P18) reveals that Ramkishan Meena (now deceased) had died between 36-48 hours from the date of conducting autopsy on the dead body. The autopsy was conducted on 16.06.2012 at 5:00 p.m. The prosecution witnesses deposed that accused and deceased both were last seen together at 8-8:30 p.m. on 14.06.2012. Both were seen having meals in Kamal Punjabi Dhaba at 9-9:30 p.m. on 14.06.2012 and in the morning on 15.06.2012 the dead body of Ramkishan Meena was found near the sawmill on the internal way to Basant Vihar Colony which is connected to the main road. 16. Thus, the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. 17. The prosecution has brought another circumstance that on the information given by the accused appellant, Rs. 7,000/- in cash (vide Ex. P9) and motorcycle (Ex. P10) were recovered. Ex. P33 is the bill of the motorcycle which was purchased on 15.06.2012. 18. PW14-Banwarilal deposed that the accused appellant returned his loan amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 15.06.2012. Recovery of the money and money paid towards transaction for purchase of new motorbike made by the accused in the circumstance brought by the prosecution establish the manner in which accused had spent the looted amount. Recovery memos (Ex. P11, Ex. P13 and Ex. P14) reflect that the accused appellant had malicious intention to cause death of Ramkishan Meena. Recovery of the money and money paid towards transaction for purchase of new motorbike made by the accused in the circumstance brought by the prosecution establish the manner in which accused had spent the looted amount. Recovery memos (Ex. P11, Ex. P13 and Ex. P14) reflect that the accused appellant had malicious intention to cause death of Ramkishan Meena. The accused appellant looted the money and committed murder of Ramkishan Meena. 19. As discussed above, it has been found proved that deceased was in the company of the appellant and was last seen together. It is significant to mention here that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding death and certain other facts unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts failed to explain which might lead the Court to draw a different inference. In the instant case, the prosecution has proved these facts that deceased Ram Kishan Meena was last seen in the company of the accused appellant. Thus, in our view, it was quite unnatural conduct of the accused appellant who was having special knowledge about all these aspects. Thus, under these circumstances irresistible conclusion can be drawn that the accused appellant has murdered the deceased and thrown the dead body of deceased near the sawmill on the internal way to Basant Vihar Colony which is connected the main road. In that view of the matter the trial court was justified in convicting and sentencing the accused appellant. 20. For the reasons mentioned, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed.