Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 779 (RAJ)

Rani v. State

2019-03-07

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. The appellants herein stand convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 20.02.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.16/2012 (23/10) (44/10). Name of the appellantapplicant Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded 1. Raju @ Raja 2. Smt. Rani 302 read with Section 34 IPC Life term imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo five months' rigorous imprisonment. 201 read with Section 34 IPC Seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. Being aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences awarded, the appellants have preferred the instant appeals under Section 374 (2) CrPC. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of these appeals are noted hereinbelow. 4. The appellant Smt. Rani was married to the deceased Shri Govind Oad Rajput and the couple had three daughters. She was residing in the house owned by Shri Govind with her three daughters at the ITI Basti, Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh. The prosecution claims that Smt. Rani was indulged in an illicit extramarital affair with Raju @ Raja Majabi. Govind opposed this relationship, upon which, Smt. Rani and Raju @ Raja used to beat him. Govind shared these unfortunate events with his father Vilayati Ram. A panchayat was convened and Smt. Rani and Raju @ Raja were counselled to terminate their affair, but they did not relent and continued their illicit relationship. The elder daughter of Smt. Rani and Shri Govind, namely, Pushpa, also supported this illegal relationship. On 30.04.2010 Shri Vilayati Ram went to meet his son, but he did not find Govind present in the house. Smt. Rani and Pushpa met him. When he enquired from them about Govind, initially they gave evasive replies, but finally blurted out that Govind had died in a train accident and that the Railway police had carried out the necessary formalities. Shri Vilayati Ram tried to look out in the vicinity, but when he could not find out anything, he went to the Railway Police Station on 01.05.2010 and made an enquiry from the officials, who told him that some one had indeed died in a train accident, but the dead body could not be identified and thus, had been cremated. Shri Vilayati Ram tried to look out in the vicinity, but when he could not find out anything, he went to the Railway Police Station on 01.05.2010 and made an enquiry from the officials, who told him that some one had indeed died in a train accident, but the dead body could not be identified and thus, had been cremated. He saw the photographs of the dead body and identified the same to be of his son. He went back to the house of the deceased and noticed that Rani and her daughters were missing. He collected Hari Ram, Prabhu Ram and Laxman and again went to the house of Govind at the ITI Basti and found Rani and Pushpa there. When they were questioned as to why they had not identified the dead body, both confessed in the presence of these persons that they had throttled Govind to death on 20.04.2010; chopped off his neck by a sword and threw the dead body on the Railway tracks. They also confessed that Raju @ Raja Majabi and Pushpa had assisted Rani in committing the murder. Shri Vilayati Ram submitted a written report (Ex.P/2) with these allegations to the SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction on 02.05.2010 at 2.15 p.m., on the basis whereof, a formal FIR No.270/2010 (Ex.P/23) was chalked out at the Police Station Hanumangarh Junction for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC and investigation was commenced. 5. It came to light during investigation that Railway Driver Nijamuddin (C.W.1), while driving the train No.9223 from Hanumangarh Junction to Bikaner, saw a dead body at about 6.00 a.m. on 21.04.2010 and reported the matter to Shri Shyamjiprasad (P.W.16), the Deputy Superintendent, North Western Railway, Hanumangarh Junction, who in turn submitted a memo Ex.P/1 at the Police Station GRP, Hanumangarh Junction on the same day at 6.45 a.m. regarding the dead body lying near the Railway tracks. The SHO, Police Station GRP Shri Surendra Singh registered inquest No.11/10 under Section 174 CrPC and got an enquiry conducted through Haripal Singh, Head Constable. The severed pieces of the nude dead body were seen lying between kms 93/8 and 93/9. The head as well as its right arm were missing. The head was recovered from a Nala near the kms. 93/6 and 93/7. Panchnamas were prepared. The severed pieces of the nude dead body were seen lying between kms 93/8 and 93/9. The head as well as its right arm were missing. The head was recovered from a Nala near the kms. 93/6 and 93/7. Panchnamas were prepared. A copper ring bearing name Govind was found on the little finger of the left hand of the unknown dead body, which was seized during the enquiry of the inquest proceedings. Since the dead body could not be identified and remained unclaimed, the same was handed over to the Municipality Hanumangarh Junction for cremation. Shri Rajendra Singh, Constable, GRP Station Hanumangarh Junction came to know during enquiry that one Shri Govind was missing from his house at the ITI Basti for last 13 to 14 days, upon which, he made an enquiry from the appellant Smt. Rani and showed her the photographs etc. She identified the dead body to be of her husband. 6. During investigation of the FIR No.270/2010, the appellants herein were apprehended on 05.05.2010. The accused appellant Smt. Rani allegedly gave an information (Ex.P/37) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the Investigating Officer Shri Sanjay Bothra (P.W.14), SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction, that she had concealed a Jute bag in the septic tank constructed behind her house. Accused Raju @ Raja allegedly gave an information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/36) to the Investigating Officer that he had thrown a sword in the same septic tank. The SHO claims to have recovered a sword, a jute bag and a pair of plastic chappals at the instance of the accused in furtherance of the informations provided by them under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide seizure memos Ex.P/36 and Ex.P/37. 7. After investigation, a charge-sheet was proposed against the accused Raju @ Raja, Smt. Rani and Kumari Pushpa @ Sanju for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC. Since Kumari Pushpa was a minor, charge-sheet against her was submitted in the court of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh, whereas, a regular charge-sheet was filed against the appellants Smt. Rani and Raju @ Raja for these offences in the court of the Magistrate concerned. Since Kumari Pushpa was a minor, charge-sheet against her was submitted in the court of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Hanumangarh, whereas, a regular charge-sheet was filed against the appellants Smt. Rani and Raju @ Raja for these offences in the court of the Magistrate concerned. Since the offence under Section 302 IPC was Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, from where, the same was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Hanumangarh for trial. 8. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellants for the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses, exhibited 48 documents and 5 articles in support of its case. Two witnesses C.W.1 Nijamuddin and C.W.2 Dr. Vijendra Singh Shekhawat were examined as court witnesses. The accused were questioned under Section 313 CrPC and were confronted with the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They denied the same and claimed that they had been falsely implicated in the case. Two witnesses were examined in defence. 9. After hearing and considering the submissions of the defence and the prosecution and appreciating the entire evidence available on record, the trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Being aggrieved thereof, the appellants have preferred these two separate appeals. As the appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 20.02.2013, the same are being decided together. 10. Mr. Kaluram Bhati, learned counsel representing the accused appellant Smt. Rani, and Ms. Ranjana Singh Mertia, learned counsel representing the accused appellant Raju @ Raja, vehemently and fervently urged that the impugned judgment, whereby the appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced for the alleged murder of Shri Govind, is based on sheer conjectures and surmises. They urged that the foundation of the prosecution case that the deceased was first throttled to death in the house; his neck was chopped off and the dead body was carried in the jute bag and was thrown between the Railway tracks so as to give it the shape of an accident, is totally fictional, fabricated and fundamentally flawed. They urged that the foundation of the prosecution case that the deceased was first throttled to death in the house; his neck was chopped off and the dead body was carried in the jute bag and was thrown between the Railway tracks so as to give it the shape of an accident, is totally fictional, fabricated and fundamentally flawed. In this regard, they drew the court's attention to the site inspection plan (Ex.P/6) prepared by the GRP officials, which records presence of blood stains all around the place, where the dead body was found. They further urged that in view of the clear and unimpeachable opinion of the medical witness Dr. Vinod Mawadia (P.W.8), it is manifest that all the injuries noticed on the severed pieces of the dead body of Govind were antemortem crush injuries and could be caused by running over of a train. They submitted that if at all there was any substance in the prosecution case and the conjectural findings of the trial court that the deceased was first killed in his house and his dead body was disposed of at the Railway tracks, then there was no chance of blood being spilt near and around the railway tracks, where the severed parts of the dead body were found and of the crush injuries noticed by the doctor being antemortem in nature. 11. He further urged that there are grave contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses Vilayati Ram (P.W.3), Hari Ram (P.W.9) and Prabhu Ram (P.W.11) regarding the alleged extrajudicial confession of Smt. Rani. He further submits that the conviction of the appellant Rani cannot be founded on the solitary evidence of extrajudicial confession, which is otherwise also belied and contradicted by the postmortem report and the evidence of the medical witness. 12. Ms. He further submits that the conviction of the appellant Rani cannot be founded on the solitary evidence of extrajudicial confession, which is otherwise also belied and contradicted by the postmortem report and the evidence of the medical witness. 12. Ms. Ranjana Singh Mertia, learned counsel representing accused appellant Raju @ Raja urged that there is no allegation in the FIR that the appellant Raju @ Raja made any extrajudicial confession and thus, as per her, even if the fictitious prosecution theory is accepted for the sake of arguments, then also, apart from the recovery of the sword, which, as per her, is otherwise inconsequential in absence of proper evidence about the blood group of the deceased, there is no material whatsoever on the entire record against the accused appellant Raju @ Raja so as to connect him with the alleged crime. 13. As regards the recoveries, the contention of learned defence counsel was that the same are totally false and fabricated and the Investigating Officer appears to have dabbed the articles with blood and forwarded the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory. In this regard, they drew the court's attention to the statement of Om Prakash (P.W.12), who recovered the jute bag and the sword from the septic tank in the house of the deceased. They referred to the cross-examination of the witness, wherein, it is elicited that 10 bottles of phenyl and 10 bottles of kerosene were poured into the septic tank before the articles were taken out. They, thus, urged that there would not remain even a faintest possibility of retention of blood stains on the recovered articles after this intensive chemical exposure and after being submerged in the dirty sludge of the septic tank for almost 15 days. They, thus, submitted that the appeals deserve to be accepted and the accused appellants are entitled to be acquitted of the charges. 14. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel. He urged that the appellants had strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased as they were indulged in a long prevailing extramarital affair with each other, which was not palatable to the deceased Govind. 14. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel. He urged that the appellants had strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased as they were indulged in a long prevailing extramarital affair with each other, which was not palatable to the deceased Govind. To eliminate Govind from the way, the accused appellants, murdered him by throttling in the house; his neck was chopped off and the dead body was thrown between the Railway tracks so as to give the incident the guise of a railway accident. He further contended that the recovery of severed head of the deceased was made from a significant distance from the Railway tracks, thereby corroborating the extrajudicial confession made by the accused Rani that the head of the deceased was chopped off and was thrown away at some distance. He contended that natural and truthful evidence of Vilayati Ram, Hari Ram, Prabhu Ram etc., regarding the extrajudicial confession made by the accused Smt. Rani, is thoroughly corroborated by the circumstances noticed at the Railway track; the medical evidence and the recoveries effected at the instance of the accused appellants and hence, as per the learned Public Prosecutor, the chain of circumstances is complete and convincing and thus, the trial court committed no error whatsoever while convicting the appellants as above vide the impugned judgment. He urged that the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference and craved dismissal of the appeal. 15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and have threadbare re-appreciated the evidence available on record and have perused the impugned judgment. 16. The prosecution case can be summarized in a very narrow compass. It hinges on the following facts and circumstances : 1. Extramarital affair between the accused appellants; 2. Unnatural conduct of Smt. Rani in not disclosing about the disappearance of her husband to anyone for a significant period of about 12 days; 3. Extrajudicial confession made by her in the presence of Vilayati Ram (P.W.3), Hari Ram (P.W.9) and Prabhu Ram (P.W.11); and 4. Recovery of blood stained and soiled jute sack, pair of chappals and the sword effected from the septic tank in the house, where the deceased Shri Govind and accused appellant Smt. Rani resided and the presence of 'O' group blood on the recovered articles as per the FSL Report (Ex.P/42). 5. Recovery of blood stained and soiled jute sack, pair of chappals and the sword effected from the septic tank in the house, where the deceased Shri Govind and accused appellant Smt. Rani resided and the presence of 'O' group blood on the recovered articles as per the FSL Report (Ex.P/42). 5. The medical evidence and the evidence of the Railway officers. 17. We have carefully appreciated the entire material available on record and more particularly, the circumstances held by the trial court to be incriminating and clinchingly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Suffice it to say that law is wellsettled that evidence of extrajudicial confession is considered to be of weak nature by its very disposition. Any witness, who has a bone to grind against the accused, can concoct a theory of extrajudicial confession by the accused and testify about the same before the police or the courts that is why, corroboration in material particulars is essential if the evidence of extrajudicial confession is to be acted upon. Thus, we have to appreciate and weigh with circumspection, the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses Vilayati Ram (P.W.3), Hari Ram (P.W.9) and Prabhu Ram (P.W.11), who claimed that the accused Smt. Rani and her daughter Pushpa made an extrajudicial confession before them on 02.05.2010 that they had murdered the deceased Shri Govind and had thrown the severed parts of the dead body near the Railway tracks. We find that the theory of extrajudicial confession is totally fabricated and unacceptable for more than one reasons. As per the version of the three witnesses referred to supra, accused appellant Rani and Pusha confessed that the deceased was first throttled to death by a Chunni and then his neck was chopped off. Firstly, it does not stand to reason that if the accused had planned to dispose of the dead body by throwing it near the Railway tracks and give the incident the colour of an accident, then why they would take the trouble of chopping off the neck of the deceased and invite the unnecessary trouble of cleaning the blood stains etc. from the house. Secondly, if at all the accused had been successful in killing the deceased by strangulation, then there was no reason for them to cut his neck off and the dead body in one piece could have been thrown on the railway tracks. from the house. Secondly, if at all the accused had been successful in killing the deceased by strangulation, then there was no reason for them to cut his neck off and the dead body in one piece could have been thrown on the railway tracks. Finally and assuming for the argument's sake that the deceased was killed in the house and his dead body was thrown on the Railway tracks, then there was no possibility whatsoever that when subjected to postmortem, the doctor would have noticed "antemortem" crush injuries caused by running over of the train on the dead body. A medical jurist is well trained to make a distinction between the antemortem and postmortem wounds. Dr. Vinod Mawadia (P.W.8) made a clear and categoric deposition in the court that all the wounds noticed by him on the severed parts of dead body including its severed head were crush injuries which were antemortem in nature and that the injuries in the nature of those observed by him during postmortem could only be caused by coming under the wheel of running train. He affirmatively stated that such injuries could not be caused by a sword. Manifestly, thus, the prosecution theory regarding the accused having killed the deceased by strangulating him, chopping off his head and throwing the dead body on the Railway tracks and the head at another place fizzles out totally, as the medical evidence, which is clinching and convincing, totally `s out the possibility that the deceased was murdered at another place and the dead body was thrown on the tracks. If there had been a semblence of truth in this allegation, then the crush injuries noticed by the doctor would definitely display marked signs of postmortem wounds. Thus, the prosecution case that the accused murdered the deceased and then threw his dead body on the tracks cannot be accepted even for the sake of conjectures. It is definitely not the case of the prosecution that the accused threw the deceased on the tracks while he was alive and murdered him in this manner. If at all the prosecution was desirous of making any endeavour of this kind, then it was required to prove this allegation by leading proper evidence. However, neither was any such case set up by the prosecution before the trial court nor did they lead any evidence to this effect. 18. If at all the prosecution was desirous of making any endeavour of this kind, then it was required to prove this allegation by leading proper evidence. However, neither was any such case set up by the prosecution before the trial court nor did they lead any evidence to this effect. 18. The prosecution alleged that the accused appellant Smt. Rani did not inform the first informant Vilayati Ram (P.W.3) regarding the death of Shri Govind Singh despite being aware of the incident right from 21.04.2010 and portrayed this fact to be an incriminating circumstance. However, we have perused the statement of P.W.1 Rajendra Singh, Constable, GRP Station Hanumangarh Junction, who categorically stated that during enquiry of the inquest report No.11/2010, he came to know that Govind Singh of ITI Basti, Hanumangarh Junction was missing for last 13 to 14 days. On this, he went to the house of Govind Singh and met the appellant Smt. Rani. On enquiry, she disclosed that her husband was indeed missing for the corresponding period. He summoned Rani to the GRP, where she identified the photographs of the dead body and the ring collected therefrom to be of her husband. This exercise of identification was done by Rani on 01.05.2010 and thus, apparently, she could not have been aware about her husband having expired before this day. Thus, the theory set up in the statement of Vilayati Ram (P.W.3) that on 30.04.2010 Smt. Rani disclosed to him that Govind Singh had expired by coming under a train is totally falsified. Vilayati Ram also admitted in his cross-examination that Govind was in the habit of going away from his house and remained absent for periods of one-two months at a time. These instances were frequent. In this background, even if Smt. Rani did not report the fact of her husband having gone missing, no adverse inference can be drawn against her. 19. So far as the evidence of recoveries is concerned, as we have already held that the deceased Shri Govind died because of being run over by a train, the recoveries of the jute bag, sword and the pair of chappals alleged to be stained with 'O' group blood lose all significance. 19. So far as the evidence of recoveries is concerned, as we have already held that the deceased Shri Govind died because of being run over by a train, the recoveries of the jute bag, sword and the pair of chappals alleged to be stained with 'O' group blood lose all significance. That apart, if considered in light of the crossexamination of Om Prakash (P.W.12), there was no possibility that these articles could have retained the blood stains after being submerged in the dirty water of septic tank for almost 15 days and after numerous bottles of harsh chemicals like phenyl, kerosene etc. had been poured therein. 20. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned judgment rendered by the trial court convicting the appellants as above is based sheerly and purely on conjectures and surmises and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law or on facts. Accordingly, the appeals deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 20.02.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.16/2012 (23/10) (44/10) is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of the charges. They are in custody. They shall be released from jail forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 21. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437- A CrPC, each of the accused appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court.