Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 324 (RAJ)

Dharam Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2020-02-04

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, SABINA

body2020
ORDER : 1. Appellant has filed the appeal challenging the judgment/order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the Trial Court, whereby, appellant was convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30.06.2017, complainant was sleeping at his residence. Son of Prajapat came and informed the complainant that appellant had inflicted injuries to his wife and she was lying unconscious in the fields. He reached the spot and found that Manisha @ Mangli wife of the appellant was lying dead at the spot. Appellant had inflicted injuries to the deceased on her head with the help of fawada. At that time, Khushiram and Balram sons of the appellant were present at the spot. 3. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR bearing No. 147 dated 30.06.2017 was registered at police station Sapotra, District Karauli under Sections 341, 323 and 302 IPC. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. 5. Charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 341, 323 and 302 IPC. Appellant did not plead guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in the case. 7. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 8. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 11.04.2019, ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 341, 323 and 302 IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Trial Court has erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the appellant. In fact, it was the case of no evidence as the material witnesses PW-2 Khushiram and PW-3 Dil Khush had not supported the prosecution case during trial. So far as, the complainant is concerned, he had stated that he had been informed by the son of Prajapat with regard to the incident. But the said son of Prajapat had not been examined during trial or investigation. So far as, the complainant is concerned, he had stated that he had been informed by the son of Prajapat with regard to the incident. But the said son of Prajapat had not been examined during trial or investigation. Although, during investigation, fawada was allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant but there was no other connecting evidence on record to establish that murder had been committed with the said weapon. Pant of the appellant had been recovered after two days of the incident and it was not established conclusively that the blood stains on pant matched with the blood group of the deceased. 10. Learned State Counsel has opposed the appeal. 11. Present case relates to murder of Manisha @ Mangli. As per Exhibit P-18 postmortem report, cause of the death of deceased was head injury suffered by her. Postmortem report Exhibit P-18 was proved on record by Dr. Devendra PW-8. 12. Prosecution case rests on eye witness account. However, in the present case, eye witnesses PW-2 Khushiram and PW-3 Dil Khush have not supported the prosecution case during trial. The said witnesses are the sons of the deceased and had deposed that they did not know as to how their mother had died. 13. So far as, PW-1 Hari Charan complainant is concerned, he was not an eye witness to the incident. As per this witness, he had been informed about the incident by the son of Prajapat. However, the person who had informed him about the incident was not examined during trial. As per PW-1 Hari Charan, he had been told by the sons of the deceased that their mother had been murdered by the appellant. But the sons of the deceased while appearing in the witness box have not supported the prosecution case. Moreover, the fact that he had been told by the sons of the deceased that their father had murdered their mother, was not mentioned in the FIR Exhibit P-20. In his cross-examination, he deposed that when he reached the spot, police had already removed the dead body from the spot. 14. PW-4 Karan Singh is the brother of the appellant and he had also not supported the prosecution case during trial. 15. In his cross-examination, he deposed that when he reached the spot, police had already removed the dead body from the spot. 14. PW-4 Karan Singh is the brother of the appellant and he had also not supported the prosecution case during trial. 15. PW-10 Mahendra Singh Investigating Officer stated in his cross-examination that he had been informed by some Ambulance person that a man had committed murder of his wife and thereafter, they had reached the spot. 16. During investigation of the case, fawada was recovered at the instance of the appellant. Exhibit P-27 is the report of Forensic Science Laboratory. As per the said report, human blood was found on the fawada but its blood group was 'inconclusive'. Incident in the present case had occurred on 30.06.2017. Appellant was arrested on the same day vide Exhibit P-13. As per Exhibit P-14 pant belonging to the appellant was taken in possession on 02.07.2017. As per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Exhibit P-27, human blood of 'B' group was found on the pant. But on the lugada of the deceased, the blood group is shown to be 'inconclusive'. 17. Thus, in the present case, the eye witnesses who were material witnesses and none other than the sons of the deceased, have not supported the prosecution case during trial. From the report of Forensic Science Laboratory also it can not be conclusively held that the fawada allegedly recovered from the appellant had been used at the time of crime. There is no conclusive evidence that the blood stains lifted from the pant of the appellant matched with the blood group of the deceased. 18. It is a settled proposition of law that the prosecution has to prove its case against an accused beyond the shadow of the reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence. However, in the present case, prosecution has failed to establish its case as the material witnesses/eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution case during trial. 19. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of the reasonable doubt, therefore, he is liable to be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Impugned judgment/order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the Trial Court are set aside. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. Impugned judgment/order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the Trial Court are set aside. Appellant who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 21. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant Dharam Singh is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, and surety bond of the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months with the stipulation that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant Dharam Singh on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.