Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 224 (RAJ)

Mangi Lal v. State

2020-01-23

ABHAY CHATURVEDI, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant victim's appeal under Section 378 (1) & (3) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-complainant Mangi Lal aggrieved of the impugned judgment dated 12.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.24/2014 whereby the accused respondent No.2 Sukhram was acquitted from the charge under Section 302 IPC. 2. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-victim on the aspect of admission of the appeal and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record. 3. The appellant lodged a written report at the Police Station Chhatargarh on 14.03.2014 alleging inter alia that his brother Magan Lal had been murdered by the accused Sukhram in the night of 13.03.2014, at about 11 o'clock by beating him and then strangulating him by a towel. Budhram Meghwal S/o Jetha Ram Meghwal saw the accused Sukh Ram tying the towel on the neck of Magan Lal. He requested him to refrain from doing so but Sukhram threatened Budhram and made him to go away. In the morning Magan Lal's dead body was seen lying on the road. Sukhram had indulged in a similar incident about 9-10 months earlier as well. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.66/2014 was registered at the Police Station Chhatargarh for the offence under Section 302 IPC. After conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the respondent for the charge under Section 302 IPC. The case was committed and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Bikaner for trial, who framed charge against the accused as above. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 13 witnesses were examined and 32 documents were exhibited by the prosecution to prove its case. The accused, upon being questioned 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the prosecution allegations, denied the same but did not choose to lead evidence in defence. After hearing and appreciating the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial court proceeded to acquit the accused from the charge by the judgment dated 12.09.2017, which is assailed in this victim's appeal. 4. After a threadbare appreciation of the evidence available on record, it is clear that the entire case of prosecution is based on circumstantial and inferential evidence. 4. After a threadbare appreciation of the evidence available on record, it is clear that the entire case of prosecution is based on circumstantial and inferential evidence. The star witness of the prosecution is alleged to be Budharam PW-6 who alleged that in the night of 13.03.2014 at about 11 o'clock, he was going towards the shop of Babulal for buying a 'bidi'. At that point of time, he saw Sukhram grappling with Magan Lal and towel was tied around his neck. The witness claims to have requested the accused to refrain but he was threatened that it was an internal affair and noone should interfere therein. Thereafter, the witness went towards the shop of Babulal. The next morning, he heard noise of crying coming from the house of Magan Lal and Mangi Lal. He went and saw Sukhram running away from there. In cross examination, the witness admitted that he did not tell Babulal that he had seen Magan Lal and Sukhram quarreling with each other or that Sukhram had tied a towel around the neck of Magan Lal. He did not go to the house of Magan Lal or Mangi Lal and tell them about the incident during the night. Thus, the prosecution seems to be drawing inference from the evidence of this witness that he saw the accused grappling with the deceased with a towel around his neck in the night time. However, the conduct of this witness in keeping silent and not telling anyone of this incident in the night time makes his testimony suspicious. In addition thereto, as per the evidence of Medical Jurist Dr. Bhagirath Singh PW-2, when postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Magan Lal, it was found that his death had occurred because of suffocation caused by inhalation of sand. Ex-facie, we are of the view that apart from the fact that the conduct of the witness Budhram, in keeping silent despite seeing the accused grappling with the deceased with a towel tied around his neck and not telling the family members of the deceased, brings his testimony under a grave cloud of doubt. 5. Further more, even the claim of the deceased that he went to the shop of Babulal in the night of 13.03.2014 at 11 o'clock for purchasing bidi is also suspicious. 5. Further more, even the claim of the deceased that he went to the shop of Babulal in the night of 13.03.2014 at 11 o'clock for purchasing bidi is also suspicious. The presence of this witness at the scene of the occurrence is just like that of a chance witness and is not corroborated by any other evidence whatsoever. Babulal to whose shop this witness allegedly went for purchasing the bidi was not examined by the prosecution. That apart, neither the shop of Babulal, nor the house of the witness Budhram is shown in this Site Inspection Plan prepared of the place where, the dead body of the deceased was seen lying and thus, apparently, presence of Sukhram at the scene of the occurrence becomes extremely doubtful. Other than the statement of Budhram, there is no evidence whatsoever, which can connect the accused with the alleged crime. The trial court discarded the evidence of Budhram after due and thorough appreciation of the material on record. In addition thereto, the prosecution proposed the evidence of witnesses Pemaram PW-4 and Poonamram PW-5 in whose presence, the accused allegedly made an extra judicial confession. However, the conduct of both these witnesses in keeping silent when the Police arrived at the scene of occurrence and not telling anyone that the accused had made the extra judicial confession in their presence, makes their evidence doubtful. 6. In this background, the testimony of these witnesses was rightly discarded by the Investigating Officer. 7. As a consequence, we are of the firm opinion that the acquittal of the accused as recorded by the trial court is based on an apropos appreciation of the evidence available on record. 8. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference. 9. Thus, the appeal fails and is hereby rejected as being devoid of merit.