Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 794 (RAJ)

Jogaram S/o Sh. Ruparam Ji v. State, Through PP

2022-03-08

REKHA BORANA, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by accused-appellant Joga Ram under Section 374 of CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated 15.09.2009 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Camp Balotra Camp, Balotra in Sessions Case No.61/2008 whereby he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to the following punishments: Section 302 IPC Section 302 IPC - Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. Section 4/25 Arms Act One year’s imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days’ simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3. On 28.05.2008 one Maga Ram filed a written report with the Siwana Police Station stating that on 27.05.2008, at about 06:00 PM in the evening his nephew Teja Ram had gone to the accused Joga Ram’s place to purchase the firewood. Both Joga Ram and Teja Ram moved out of the house talking to each other and just after a distance of 50 steps from the house of Joga Ram, Joga Ram attacked Teja Ram with a sharp weapon and inflicted serious injuries on head, nose, mouth and neck of Teja Ram. After receiving the injuries Teja Ram cried in pain and hearing him, Akha Ram and Gapa Ram came running to the place of incident. Seeing Akha Ram and Gapa Ram coming, Joga Ram fled away from the site. Akha Ram informed his brother Tulsa Ram about the incident and when they reached the site, Teja Ram had already expired. It was further stated in the FIR that because of some family dispute, Joga Ram inflicted serious injuries on head and face of Teja Ram which proved fatal. The said incident has been reported to be of around 8 o’clock in the night. 4. Upon this report, an FIR No.68/2008 (Exh.29) came to be registered at Police Station Siwana for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and investigation was commenced on the same. After investigation, challan was filed under Section 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, the case was committed for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Balotra (hereinafter referred to as “learned Trial Court”). After investigation, challan was filed under Section 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, the case was committed for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Balotra (hereinafter referred to as “learned Trial Court”). Learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act which were denied and trial was claimed. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and got exhibited 46 documents. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and stated that he had falsely been implicated in the case because of personal vengeance. He further stated that no weapon was recovered from him and he was not in the village on the date of incident. 5. After conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 15.09.2009 held the accused-appellant guilty for the offences under Section 302 and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act and consequently convicted him as mentioned above. Hence, the present criminal appeal. 6. The first ground raised by counsel for the accused-appellant is that the alleged incident has been stated to be of 6 o’clock in the evening of 27.05.2008 whereas the FIR has been got registered on 28.05.2008 at about 8 o’clock in the morning. No justification for such delay in registration of the FIR has been given either in the FIR or in the statements of the complainant recorded under Section 161 CrPC. It has been submitted that no justification for the delay has given before the trial Court either. 7. The second ground raised on behalf of the accused-appellant is that there was no motive for the accused to murder the deceased. Although, it has been stated in the FIR that there was some family dispute between the accused and the deceased, any details or specification of such dispute have neither been given in the police statements nor in evidence recorded before the trial Court. What was the vengeance of the accused with the deceased and was it that grave which would culminate into the murder of the deceased have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and hence the trial Court has erred in reaching to the conclusion that the accused killed the deceased because of some pre-existing personal vengeance. 8. What was the vengeance of the accused with the deceased and was it that grave which would culminate into the murder of the deceased have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and hence the trial Court has erred in reaching to the conclusion that the accused killed the deceased because of some pre-existing personal vengeance. 8. The next ground raised by the appellant is that the complainant has stated the facts in the FIR only on the basis of the facts narrated to him by Akha Ram and Gapa Ram and he himself was neither present on the site nor did he witness any incident on the site. The FIR has been lodged only on the basis of hearsay evidence and the learned trial Court has erred in relying upon the same. 9. The next and the most important ground raised by the counsel for the appellant is that there are stark contradictions in the ocular testimony and the medical evidence. It has been alleged by the eye witness that the injuries received by the deceased were inflicted by dhariya whereas PW.6-Dr. Natwar Singh Bhati has specifically stated in his examination that the injuries were inflicted by an axe (kulhari). It has been argued by the counsel that all the witnesses have stated dhariya to be used as weapon for commission of the crime and the police has also alleged to recover dhariya only during the investigation whereas the doctor who was the author of the post-mortem report has specifically stated that the injuries were inflicted by an axe. Therefore, this sole contradiction goes to the root of the matter which has been completely ignored by the learned trial Court and therefore, the conviction based on such contradictory statements cannot be upheld. 10. The next ground argued by the counsel is that the incident has been reported to be of around 8 o’clock in the night and it has been admitted by the eye witnesses in their cross examination that when they reached the site Teja Ram had already expired and that it was dark at that time. Therefore, recognizing and identifying the accused in that dark by the so called eye witnesses is highly doubtful. Therefore, recognizing and identifying the accused in that dark by the so called eye witnesses is highly doubtful. Furthermore, the place of alleged incident was a public place and story of the prosecution cannot be believed as carrying a weapon and killing a person by that weapon at a public place is not a situation to be believed in common parlance. 11. It has further been averred on behalf of accused-appellant that investigation in the present matter had been commenced after 14 hours of the alleged incident and therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the situation at the crime scene had been changed as per convenience. Counsel also emphasized on the fact that in the present case there was no motive available to the accused-appellant to kill the deceased and the story as framed in the FIR by the prosecution is totally an afterthought and the learned trial Court has erred in relying upon the same and in convicting the accused-appellant on the basis of the same. 12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the present is a clear case proved on record corroborated by oral as well as documentary evidence. It has been submitted that the prosecution has proved the offences against the accused-appellant beyond all manner of doubt and therefore, the conviction of the accused as recorded by the learned trial Court is perfectly valid and deserves to be upheld. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, appreciated the evidence and have gone through the complete record of the case. 14. It is clear on record that although the FIR was lodged on 28.05.2008 but the information of the incident was given to the concerned police station in the night of 27.05.2008 itself. PW.13- Khushal Singh who was posted as S.H.O. in Police Station Siwana on the date of incident has specifically stated in his statement as under : ^^fnukad 27-5-2008 dks oDr 10-15 ihŒ,eŒ ij iqfyl pkSdh ikn: ls ,Œ,lŒvkbZŒ Nqxflag }kjk Fkkus ij bryk nh x;h fd f[kyokuk ukMk ekekth dh Fkkus ds ikl jkLrs ij ,d O;fDr dh yk'k iM+h gSA** 15. Therefore the ground as raised by the counsel for the accused-appellant that no information whatsoever of the incident was given for a period of 12 hours to the police authorities falls flat on the face of it. A perusal of the FIR also shows that the village Padru where the incident took place is at a distance of 35 kms from the nearest police station therefore, when the police reached the place of incident in the morning of 28.05.2008, a formal FIR was given in writing to the police authorities on the site itself. Therefore, the delay caused in registering the FIR is very well justifiable in the present matter. 16. So far as the presence of the eye witnesses on the site is concerned, the same has been proved on record beyond all manner of doubt and both the eye witnesses PW.10-Akha Ram and PW.11-Gapa Ram have stood firm to their statements despite prolonged cross examination. No contradictions in the statements of both the eye witnesses have been found which could make the same doubtful. Both the eye witnesses have in unequivocal terms deposed that the accused inflicted injuries on the head, face, nose and neck of the deceased and because of the said injuries, Teja Ram expired on the spot. The said statements of these two eye witnesses have not been controverted by leading plausible defence and therefore, the learned trial Court rightly relied upon the same. 17. The main emphasis of the counsel has been on the fact that there was no motive available to the accused-appellant to kill the deceased and in absence of any motive being proved on record, the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be upheld. The present one is the case where story of prosecution was that there was a dispute between the accused and the deceased regarding entering of goats in the fields of each other. The said story of the prosecution has not been controverted by the defence. No suggestion even of the said story being wrong has been put up to any of the prosecution witnesses therefore, there was no reason for the learned trial Court to disbelieve the story as put up and proved by the prosecution on record. Otherwise also, law is well settled that evidence of motive is not a ‘sine qua non’ for bringing home the charge of murder. Otherwise also, law is well settled that evidence of motive is not a ‘sine qua non’ for bringing home the charge of murder. The Courts look for motive as a corroboration if the other evidence is not clinching in nature. In the case at hand, the direct evidence of the two eye witnesses referred to supra has been found trustworthy and thus, no corroboration is required in form of motive. 18. The ground raised by counsel for the accused-appellant regarding the discrepancy in the evidence regarding the weapon used in the offence is also untenable. After perusal of the material and the statements available on record, it is found to be true that PW.6-Dr. Natwar Singh Bhati deposed that the injuries had been inflicted by an axe but at the same time it is also true that postmortum report stated the cause of death to be as under : “In my opinion the cause of death of Mr. Teja Ram S/o Tulsa Ram Age 28 yr R/o Khalvana Nada (Padru) is “SHOCK” due to cerebral hemorrhage & multiple injuries & fractured on fact. All injuries are antemortem in nature. All injuries are caused by sharp weapon.” 19. The said cause of death has also been reaffirmed by the said witness in his statements as under: ^^mDr lHkh /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls dkfjr dh gqbZ FkhA esjh jk; esa e`R;q dk dkj.k 'kkWd M~ ;w Vw lsjhczy gsejst ,.M eYVhiy batjh ,.M ÝsDpj vkWu nk QslA mDr lHkh pksVs e`R;q ls iwoZ dh dkfjr FkhA** 20. It seems that the statement of the injuries being caused by an axe has been made by the said witness on a suggestion being given by the counsel during the cross-examination. Just specifying the weapon to be an axe would not change the fate of the case as the statement made by the doctor that the injuries were caused by a sharp weapon would prevail. Axe and dhariya both are sharp weapons in nature and therefore, just by a trivial discrepancy in the name of weapon, the nature of the injuries would not change. Therefore, the findings as reached to by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be invalid on this sole ground. 21. Axe and dhariya both are sharp weapons in nature and therefore, just by a trivial discrepancy in the name of weapon, the nature of the injuries would not change. Therefore, the findings as reached to by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be invalid on this sole ground. 21. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion and appreciation of evidence we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and 4/25 of the Arms Act. 22. Consequently, the present criminal appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed.