Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 87 (RAJ)

Ram Lal v. State

2019-01-08

SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. The present Jail appeal was admitted by this court on 10.04.2012 and an Amicus Curiae was appointed to assist the court on behalf of the accused-appellant. 2. The instant Jail appeal under Section 374(2) has been preferred by the appellant against judgment dated 17.12.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 92/2011 (30/2010) whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offences under sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 325 and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In Default 302 IPC Life imprisonment 5000/- 05 months R.I. 307 IPC 10 years R.I 2000/- 02 months R.I. 326 IPC 07 years R.I. 1000/- 01 months R.I. 324 IPC 01 year R.I. 200/- 04 days R.I. 325 IPC 03 years R.I. 500/- 15 days R.I. 3. Brief facts necessary to be narrated are that on 04.07.2010 at 08:15 am, Parcha Bayan (Ex.P/1) of Smt. Vidhya Devi (PW-1) was recorded at Government Hospital, Hanumangarh Town by Subhash Chandra, ASI wherein she stated that she is married to the accused-appellant Ram Lal. She along with her husband used to work as labours on the agricultural land situated at Chak 2 SNM which was taken on rent by Kulwant Rai Arora. In the night of 03.07.2010, she along with her sister Roshani came from village Jagdewala Bikaner to Chak 2 SNM by bus after attending the marriage ceremony of daughter of Roshani. During the ceremony, heated altercation ensued between her and Ram Lal. Suspecting her character, her husband alleged that she was having illicit relations with many persons and threatened her of dire consequences. Saying so, he went back to his Dhani situated at Chak 2 SNM from Jagdewala on 30.06.2010. At night, while she and her sister were sleeping, her husband asked as to why she did not bring their son Sandeep with her. Thereafter, all three went to sleep. At around 2:00-3:00 am in the morning, while she was sleeping, she was assaulted on her face by her husband by a Kassi and he also abused her by using filthy language. He said that he will not leave them alive and inflicted 2-3 blows on her face. He also inflicted injuries on the head of her sister who was sleeping nearby. She started writhing with pain and died on the spot. Her husband thereafter left the place of the incident. He said that he will not leave them alive and inflicted 2-3 blows on her face. He also inflicted injuries on the head of her sister who was sleeping nearby. She started writhing with pain and died on the spot. Her husband thereafter left the place of the incident. The police came on the spot in the morning and she was admitted in the hospital. 4. On the aforesaid Parcha Bayan, a formal FIR No. 406/2010 was registered at Police Station, Hanumangarh Town against the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 302 & 307 IPC. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused appellant for the offences under sections 302, 307, 326, 324 & 325 IPC. 5. Learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 326, 325, 324 IPC. The same were read over and explained to him but he pleaded not guilty and sought trial. 6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and 34 documents and as many as 8 articles were exhibited in its support. In defence, four documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 were exhibited. 7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the evidence adduced during the course of trial. He stated that Smt. Vidhya Devi was having illicit relationship with somebody else which was opposed by Roshani Devi, therefore, Smt. Vidhya Devi and her paramour had killed Roshani and to remove him from the way, he was falsely implicated. 8. Learned trial Court after hearing the arguments, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 17.12.2011 for the offences under sections 302, 307, 326, 324 & 325 IPC. Hence, this appeal. 9. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae has vehemently and fervently submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case as there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. PW-1 claims to be the sole eye-witness of the incident and her testimony is not worth reliance. The learned trial Court has failed to take into consideration that Smt. Vidhya Devi being wife of the appellant was having illicit relationship with somebody else and, therefore, her testimony in the present case is not worth credence and reliable. PW-1 claims to be the sole eye-witness of the incident and her testimony is not worth reliance. The learned trial Court has failed to take into consideration that Smt. Vidhya Devi being wife of the appellant was having illicit relationship with somebody else and, therefore, her testimony in the present case is not worth credence and reliable. She has falsely implicated the accused-appellant to remove him from the way as he was a hurdle in her extramarital affair. The same was required to be discarded but the learned trial Court having relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Smt. Vidhya Devi has committed an error in convicting the accused-appellant. The chain of circumstances in the present case is not so complete that it may indicate that it was none-else than the appellant who was involved in the offences alleged in the present case. He prays that the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.2011 may be set-aside and the appellant may be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 11. On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently supported the judgment dated 17.12.2011 and submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the Parcha Bayan and statement of Smt. Vidhya Devi (PW-1). In the statement of PW-1, she categorically stated that the appellant inflicted fatal injuries to the deceased and she also suffered injuries at the hands of her husband as is evident from the injury report (Ex.P.15) which clearly shows that PW-1 Smt. Vidhya Devi was present on the spot and being an injured eye-witness her testimony is clear, specific and reliable. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW-1 Smt. Vidhya Devi which is corroborated by the medical evidence i.e. the statement of PW-8 Dr. Vinod Mawadia and the Postmortem Report (Ex.P.-22) wherein the cause of death of Smt. Roshani is opined as injuries to vital organs resulting into hemorrhage which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. FSL Report (Court Ex.P.-1) shows presence of Blood Group-A on the weapon of offence recovered on the information supplied by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as Ex.P.-31. FSL Report (Court Ex.P.-1) shows presence of Blood Group-A on the weapon of offence recovered on the information supplied by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as Ex.P.-31. On the strength of these arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the recoveries made at the instance of the accused and the medical evidence complete the chain of circumstances showing that the charges framed against the appellant have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, the judgment dated 17.12.2011 does not warrant any interference by this Court. 12. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and have examined the record of the trial Court. 13. PW-1 Smt. Vidhya Devi (Wife of the accused Ram Lal) very clearly stated that being annoyed with her after the heated altercation, her husband left the marriage. He was inebriated and was abusing her during the marriage ceremony. When she went back along with her sister to their 'Dhani' situated at Chak 2 SNM, he fought with her and threatened her of dire consequences. At night he inflicted injuries on her face with the kassi and at the same time he also assaulted her sister with the same instrument which resulted into her death and he left the place thereafter. On the next morning, she was taken to the hospital and the postmortem of the body of her sister was conducted. The reason for inflicting the injuries to her and her deceased sister Roshani was that the accused-appellant was suspicious about her character and doubted that her sister was also involved in the same. Nothing significant was elicited and the witness could not be shaken in the cross examination so as to discredit the version as deposed by her in the examination in chief. 14. PW-2 Gopi Ram who is the husband of deceased Roshani stated that after hurling the abuses during the marriage ceremony, Ram Lal left the place and he came to know that his wife Roshani passed away while Vidhya Devi was injured. PW-8 Dr. Vinod Mawadia who examined Vidhya Devi stated that she had suffered injuries as mentioned in the injury report (Ex.P.15). PW-8 Dr. Vinod Mawadia who examined Vidhya Devi stated that she had suffered injuries as mentioned in the injury report (Ex.P.15). He further stated that the autopsy of deceased Roshani was conducted by him and cause of death was multiple injuries inflicted by a sharp edged weapon which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 15. Postmortem report (Ex.P/22) shows cause of death of the deceased as injuries on the vital organs by a sharp edged weapon sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Ex.P/31 is the information under section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the accused-appellant for recovery of blood stained weapon of offence. FSL report (Court Exhibit-1) shows the presence of blood group 'O' positive on the weapon of offence and other articles sent for examination. Ex.P/15 injury report of Smt. Vidhya Devi shows number of incised wounds sustained by her. 16. The statement of PW-1 Smt. Vidhya Devi and her Parcha Bayan contain the complete narration of the incident in a very specific, clear and unambiguous fashion. Sequence and narration of events absolutely shows that fatal blows were inflicted with a sharp edged weapon i.e. kassi by the accused-appellant for the reason that he was suspicious about the character of his wife. Presence of Smt. Vidhya Devi being wife of the appellant at the scene of the occurrence is proved beyond doubt and there is no reason for us to disbelieve her testimony as she herself sustained number of injuries on her body as mentioned in the injury report (Ex.P/15) which conclusively corroborates her statement. Statement of PW1 Smt. Vidhya Devi who is an injured eye witness gets fortified from the statement of Dr. Vinod Bawadiya who mentioned a number of injuries sustained by her and the injuries sustained by the deceased Roshani and cause of her death. Besides, the postmortem report also mentions about the cause of death being the injuries inflicted by the sharp edged weapon which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The presence of the appellant in the 'Dhani' situated at Chak 2 SNM is quite natural. He being husband of PW-1 Smt. Vidhya Devi was employed for doing farming work for Kulwant Rai Arora. Nothing has come on record to show presence of any other person on the spot. 17. The presence of the appellant in the 'Dhani' situated at Chak 2 SNM is quite natural. He being husband of PW-1 Smt. Vidhya Devi was employed for doing farming work for Kulwant Rai Arora. Nothing has come on record to show presence of any other person on the spot. 17. The explanation given by the accused-appellant under section 313 Cr.PC is not worthy of belief as neither anybody else was present at the time of the incident in the 'Dhani' nor there is any evidence to this effect. The chain of sequence gets completed by the information given by the accused-appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act and the recovery of the weapon of offence having stains of blood group 'O' positive of the deceased as reported in the FSL report. 18. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the view that testimony of injured eye witness PW-1 Smt. Vidhya Devi is worth reliance and the same gets corroboration from the statements of other prosecution witnesses. The recovery of articles at the instance of the accused having blood stains matching with the blood group of the deceased and medical evidence emphatically proves that the prosecution had been able to prove the charges leveled against the accused-appellant beyond all manner of doubt. 19. In view of whatever stated above, we are of the view that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed. The judgment dated 17.12.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh convicting the accused-appellant for the offences under sections 302, 307, 326, 324 & 325 IPC is upheld.