Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2327 (RAJ)

Raju @ Rajiya S/o Paras Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2022-08-31

KULDEEP MATHUR, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Kuldeep Mathur, J. 1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 19.07.2014 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 110/2013. He has filed the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC for assailing the impugned judgment:- Offence Sentence Fine Fine Default Sentence 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 1 year simple imprisonment 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow. Pooja (P.W. 9) lodged a written report (Ex. P./1) to the S.H.O. Police Station, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar on 17.09.2013 about the murder of her mother Smt. Sita Devi. In the written report it was alleged that one Shri Raju Soni had been cohabiting with her mother for last one year. For last four months, they had been living in the present rented house i.e. the place of incident. It was further alleged that Raju Soni quarreled with her mother on the previous night. Next day, when she visited the house to meet her mother around 11:00 AM, she saw that Raju Soni was sitting on the stairs, who on seeing her, ran away. On going inside the house she found Sita Devi’s dead body lying on a cot. It was alleged that Raju Soni had murdered Sita Devi. 3. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 318/2013 (Ex.P/2) came to be registered at the Police Station, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar on 17.09.2013 for offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. Investigation was assigned to SHO Shri Devendra Singh (P.W. 11). The dead body was subjected to autopsy at the hands of Medical Jurist Shri Mukesh Kumar Bansal (P.W.7), who issued a Postmortem Report (Ex.P/18), concluding that the cause of death was strangulation and also found Rigor Mortis present on the dead body at the time of the examination. 4. The accused was arrested and acting in furtherance of the information provided by him, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the chunni used for strangulating the deceased was recovered vide memorandum (Ex.P/6). Upon conclusion of investigation, the I.O. proceeded to file charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for offence punishable under 302 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Special Judge (Women Atrocity and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar, where charge was framed against the accused for the above offence. Upon conclusion of investigation, the I.O. proceeded to file charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for offence punishable under 302 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Special Judge (Women Atrocity and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar, where charge was framed against the accused for the above offence. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 CrPC and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same, claimed to be innocent and stated that deceased Smt. Sita Devi was having enmity with number of persons, as a consequence whereof various criminal cases were filed against her. However, accused did not produce any evidence in support of his statement. Learned trial court, heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel; appreciated the evidence available on record and proceeded to convict and sentence the accused appellant as above vide judgment dated 19.07.2014 which is assailed in this appeal. 6. Mr. Vikash, learned counsel representing the appellant, contended that there is hardly any evidence worth the name on the record of the case so as to connect the appellant with the crime. The prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant was having any motive to murder Sita Devi. Counsel further contended that informant Pooja (P.W.9), alleged in the Written Report (Ex.P/1) that the accused was sitting on the stairs when she went to meet her mother around 11 AM. On seeing her coming, the accused ran away. On the contrary, the informant Pooja (P.W.9) stated in her testimony that she saw the accused appellant sitting on stairs when she visited to meet her mother; she went inside the house, saw her mother’s dead body whereupon, she screamed and on hearing her fervent cries, Santro Devi (P.W. 6), landlady, Ravindra, informant's husband and Sandeep Kaur (P.W. 10), informant’s mother in law gathered and on seeing them, the accused appellant ran away. Mr. Vikash urged that these material contradictions, as pointed out in the statement of Pooja (P.W.9), and the written report given by her remained unexplained and are sufficient to impeach her testimony. Santro Devi (P.W.6) in her statement, denied knowing anything about the alleged incident and thus, was declared hostile. The statement of Dr. Mr. Vikash urged that these material contradictions, as pointed out in the statement of Pooja (P.W.9), and the written report given by her remained unexplained and are sufficient to impeach her testimony. Santro Devi (P.W.6) in her statement, denied knowing anything about the alleged incident and thus, was declared hostile. The statement of Dr. Mukesh Kumar Bansal (P.W.7) clearly indicates that he noticed Rigor mortis on the body of Smt. Sita Devi which only commences after 6 hours from the death. This contradicts the alleged time at which the incident transpired i.e. around 11 AM according to the written report; the autopsy was conducted at 2:30 PM, so the time of death must have been around 7-8 AM. The counsel urged that a person who has committed murder would not stay put at the place of incident till 11 AM and this important aspect has been overlooked by the learned trial court. The site plan of the recovery place from where chunni was recovered, does not show presence of cooler and box, on the other hand, the cooler and box were shown in the map (Ex.P/5) prepared on the day of alleged incident i.e. 17.09.2013. After the map (Ex.P/5) was prepared, the room was sealed and thus, there is no explanation as to the disappearance of the cooler and the box, which renders the recovery suspicious. Counsel fervently submitted that the appellant accused had no motive to murder Sita Devi. To substantiate this assertion it was pointed out that the appellant accused, in his statement given under Section 313 CrPC, stated that deceased was having enmity with number of persons, as a consequence whereof various criminal cases were filed against her. Any one of these persons might have committed the murder of Smt. Sita Devi and the accused has been framed for the offence without any cogent evidence on record. 7. Mr. Vikash vehemently contended that the prosecution did not lead an iota of evidence to prove that the accused had committed the murder of the deceased. He further urged that for raising reverse burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution would first have to establish that the accused was present in the house at the time of the incident. He further urged that for raising reverse burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution would first have to establish that the accused was present in the house at the time of the incident. The time of the alleged incident is under cloud because of the presence of rigor mortis as observed on the dead body at the time of postmortem. The contradictions in written report and evidence of informant Pooja (P.W.9) makes her an unreliable witness. Mr. Vikash urged that there is total lack of evidence on the aspect of presence of the accused at the place of incident when Smt. Sita was done to death and hence, the conclusion drawn by the trial court relying on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act holding that the burden shifted onto the accused to explain the circumstances under which deceased was murdered is totally illegal and contrary to record. 8. Mr. Vikash drew the Court’s attention to the fact there were no eye witnesses of the incident and arrest had been made on basis of mere suspicion. Further, Raju Soni was not arrested from the place of incident; rather he was arrested from some other place. He concluded his arguments urging that in a case governed by circumstantial evidence the unbreached chain of circumstances is required to be established by the prosecution, who has led no plausible evidence whatsoever to bring home the charges against the appellant and thus, the failure to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is not relevant and hence, he deserves to be acquitted. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urged that Pooja (P.W. 9) in the written report (Ex.P./1) stated that the accused was involved in the relationship with the deceased Smt. Sita Devi and for the last one year they had been living together in a rented house since last four months in Santro Devi’s (P.W.6) house. He urged that the informant Pooja (P.W. 9) gave convincing evidence that the accused used to misbehave with her mother and that they had quarreled night preceding the incident. He urged that the post mortem report (Ex.P./18) establishes presence of ante morterm injuries on the body of the deceased, the cause of death was opined as strangulation. He urged that the informant Pooja (P.W. 9) gave convincing evidence that the accused used to misbehave with her mother and that they had quarreled night preceding the incident. He urged that the post mortem report (Ex.P./18) establishes presence of ante morterm injuries on the body of the deceased, the cause of death was opined as strangulation. The statement of Pooja (P.W. 9) clearly establishes that the accused was present at the time of incident, sitting on stairs and on seeing her, he ran away. The statement of Pooja (P.W. 9) is further corroborated by Sandeep Kaur (P.W.10) who stated that she saw Raju sitting on stairs, who ran away on seeing them. He urged that the fact that the accused fled from the spot on seeing Pooja and others, gives a strong indication about his conduct and guilty state of mind and establishes that he had committed murder of Sita Devi. Learned Public Prosecutor urged that, as the appellant was unquestionably staying with the deceased, Sita Devi in the house where dead body was found by the informant, Pooja (P.W. 9), the burden of proof to explain the circumstances under which Sita Devi was murdered, has been rightly shifted by the trial court upon the accused by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Since, the accused failed to offer any plausible explanation for these gravely incriminating facts and circumstances, the only consequence which would entail, would be to hold him guilty of the charges. On these grounds, the learned Public Prosecutor implored the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned judgment. 10. We have heard the submissions advanced at bar and have perused the material available on record. We have thoroughly re-appreciated the evidence led by prosecution. 11. From a perusal of the evidence of the two material witnesses i.e. the first informant, Pooja (P.W. 9), daughter of the deceased and her mother-in-law Smt. Sandeep Kaur (P.W.10), it becomes abundantly clear that the accused was present at the spot of incident, sitting on stairs and on seeing them, he ran away. It also becomes clear from statement of Pooja (P.W. 9) that the appellant often used to quarrel with the deceased. From the evidence of Pooja and Smt. Sandeep Kaur, it is established that the dead body of Smt. Sita was lying in the house and the accused was present at the scene of crime. It also becomes clear from statement of Pooja (P.W. 9) that the appellant often used to quarrel with the deceased. From the evidence of Pooja and Smt. Sandeep Kaur, it is established that the dead body of Smt. Sita was lying in the house and the accused was present at the scene of crime. On seeing the witnesses, the accused fled from the scene. The statements of Pooja and Smt. Sandeep Kaur stood the test of cross examination and inspire confidence. In the statement under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, no explanation was offered by the accused as to how Smt. Sita was strangulated to death in his presence. The presence of rigor mortis on the body at the time of postmortem harped upon by the appellant’s counsel is not significant as there is no hard and fast rule that rigor mortis starts post 6 hours of the death. In cross examination, Dr. Mukesh Bansal (P.W.7) admitted that cold temperature causes the process of rigor mortis to become slower in comparison to other weather conditions. This clearly establishes that rigor mortis is dependent on weather conditions and there is no strict rule that it appears only after 6 hours and thus arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant is not of much significance. Assuming the time of commission of crime to be prior in time to the one as narrated by the prosecution story, appellant who used to stay with the deceased, should have informed someone or police about the incident. In absence of the same, it can be safely assumed that he had committed murder and the burden to prove otherwise is on him according to Section 106 of Evidence Act. No explanation whatsoever as to the gravely incriminating circumstances was given by the accused, which establishes his guilt beyond all manner of doubt. In statement under Section 313, CrPC, accused stated that several criminal cases were registered against the deceased in various police stations and many of these complainants were inimical towards her. The appellant produced no evidence to prove this conjectural theory. On the other hand, the document exhibit (Ex.P./22) clearly reveals that the accused was a habitual offender and as many as nine cases were registered against him, including those of murder, assault and theft. The appellant produced no evidence to prove this conjectural theory. On the other hand, the document exhibit (Ex.P./22) clearly reveals that the accused was a habitual offender and as many as nine cases were registered against him, including those of murder, assault and theft. Though, previous criminal conduct in isolation does not prove anything according to Section 54 of Evidence Act but this criminal history is definitely indicative of the cruel conduct of the accused. 12. Pooja (P.W.9) has given clinching testimony that the accused had been involved in a relationship with her deceased mother for one year and both had been staying together in a rented house since last four months. This fact was not denied by the accused in his statement under Section 313, CrPC. 13. Both Pooja (P.W. 9) and Sandeep Kaur (P.W.10) gave cogent testimony, that the accused was sitting on the stairs and fled from the scene when he saw them. They could not be shaken from this version despite prolonged cross examination. 14. In wake of these facts, we have no hesitation in holding that the accused had been involved in a relationship with the deceased for the past one year and both were living in the rented house since last four months. It is in this very house that Smt. Sita was found strangulated to death. The accused was present at the rented house at the time, when the body of the deceased was discovered by Pooja (P.W.9). This has been clearly established by the statements of Pooja (P.W.9) and Sandeep Kaur (P.W.10). The statements of the above mentioned witnesses, also establish that the accused fled away from the spot on seeing them. The fact that the accused fled away from the crime scene is a significant fact which gives a clinching indication towards his guilty state of mind. 15. The Medical Jurist Dr. Mukesh Kumar Bansal (P.W.7) conducted postmortem upon the dead body of Sita Devi, and issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/18) taking note of bruise of 2¼ inches on the lower left side of the mandible bone, nail marks on the right side as well as on the left side of the chest near clavicle bone and PMR staining at the back. The Medical Jurist also noted that all the injuries were ante mortem and concluded that the death was caused by strangulation. The Medical Jurist also noted that all the injuries were ante mortem and concluded that the death was caused by strangulation. The accused was present at the crime spot and was seen by both Pooja and Sandeep Kaur. The accused in his statement under Section 313, CrPC has not given any explanation as to why he fled from the scene or under what circumstances Sita Devi was murdered. 16. As a consequence of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has proved the chain of incriminating circumstances summarized below which point exclusively to the guilt of the accused and are totally inconsistent with his innocence:- (1.) That the accused and Sita Devi had been cohabiting together for last one year and four months. (2.) That the relations between the accused and Sita Devi were strained. The accused used to quarrel with the deceased and they quarreled on the night preceding the incident. (3.) That the accused did not inform about the homicidal death of Sita Devi to anyone or police though he was present at the place of incident. (4.) That on seeing the informant Pooja and the witness Sandeep Kaur, the accused fled from the scene which is enough to draw an adverse inference against him. (5.) That the postmortem report concludes that the death was caused by strangulation associated with mechanical violence. (6.) The accused has neither denied living with Sita Devi nor his presence at the time of the incident. (7.) No explanation whatsoever has been given by the accused explaining his presence at the time of the incident and under what circumstances Sita Devi died. (8.) The failure to offer any explanation by the accused for these gravely incriminating circumstances for which the onus is upon him to prove as these were in his exclusive knowledge by virtue of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. 17. The trial court discussed the evidence in an apropos manner and was absolutely justified in recording guilt of the accused by the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2014, which does not suffer from any infirmity, factual or legal, warranting interference whatsoever. 18. Hence, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.