Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 290 (RAJ)

State Of Rajasthan v. Ram Niwas

2023-01-25

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, VIJAY BISHNOI

body2023
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.02.1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu (hereinafter to be referred as ’the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.22/91, whereby the trial court has acquitted the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302/120-B IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.11.1990 at about 10:00 AM, one Ratan Lal Darji R/o Ratan Nagar, District Churu furnished an information that some time ago when he was coming from Churu to Ratan Nagar, a passenger sitting in the tempo told him that on the right side of Churu - Ratan Nagar Road, one dead body is lying. On the basis of the said information, the SHO, Police Station Ratan Nagar, District Churu visited the site along with some police personnel and found a dead body of unknown person lying on Churu - Ratan Nagar Road and a towel was tied around the neck of that dead body. After preparation of Inspection Memo as well as Memo of Recovery of dead body and after recovering the other articles, the F.I.R. (Exhibit-P/22) was filed and investigation was started under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against some unknown persons. 3. During the course of investigation, the police recorded statements of several witnesses and thereafter filed charge-sheet against respondent No.1 - Ram Niwas for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B and 379 IPC as well as against respondent No.2 - Naurang Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. 4. The trial court framed the charges against respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, whereas framed the charges against respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. 5. It is noticed that during the pendency of the present appeal, respondent No.1 - Ram Niwas died on 27.08.2022 and the appeal qua him has been abated by this Court vide order dated 18.01.2023. 6. Assailing the judgment dated 17.02.1992 passed by the trial court, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting respondent No.2 - Naurang Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. 6. Assailing the judgment dated 17.02.1992 passed by the trial court, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the trial court has grossly erred in acquitting respondent No.2 - Naurang Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has produced PW-5 Jeevan Ram and PW-7 Arjun Ram, in front of whom, respondent No.2 confessed that he hatched a conspiracy along with co-accused respondent No.1 - Ram Niwas to kill deceased - Ratna Ram. It is also submitted that the respondent No.2 also confessed about the commission of crime in front of PW-3 Mani Ram, PW-4 Ramu Ram, PW-15 Kurha Ram, PW-18 Surja Ram and PW-20 Tauru Ram. It is argued that the trial court has illegally disbelieved the testimony of all those witnesses and erred in acquitting the accused respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court may kindly be set aside and the accused respondent No.2 may kindly be convicted for the offences, for which he was charged by the trial court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued that the extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and unless there is some corroboration, the same cannot be relied. It is also argued that there was no occasion for the respondent No.2 to confess about the alleged crime before the so called prosecution witnesses, with whom he was not having friendly relation. It is further submitted that the discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses have rightly been noticed by the trial court and the trial court was right in not relying upon the evidence of those prosecution witnesses. It is, therefore, prayed that no case for interference in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is made out and the appeal filed by the appellant-State may kindly be dismissed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. As noticed earlier, during the pendency of the present appeal, respondent No.1 - Ram Niwas has expired and the appeal against him has already been abated. 9. Now we have to examine whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC or not. 10. 8. As noticed earlier, during the pendency of the present appeal, respondent No.1 - Ram Niwas has expired and the appeal against him has already been abated. 9. Now we have to examine whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC or not. 10. To prove the charges against the respondent No.2, as noticed earlier, no direct evidence was produced by the prosecution and the case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence particularly the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the respondent No.2 in front of PW-4 Ramu Ram, PW-5 Jeevan Ram, PW-7 Arjun Ram, PW-15 Kurha Ram and PW-18 Surja Ram. 11. The trial court has disbelieved the testimony of all the above referred witnesses while observing that from the evidence available on record, it is clear that all the above referred witnesses were annoyed as the deceased - Rana Ram adopted Om Prakash, who happened to be the son of respondent No.2 and brother of respondent No.1, and some disputes were going on between them. The trial court has also observed that from the evidence of PW-5 Jeevan Ram and PW-7 Arjun Ram, it is clear that both the witnesses gave descriptions of different words, which were used by accused respondent No.2 while confessing the crime. 12. The trial court, after analyzing the various discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses such as date and time of death of deceased - Ratna Ram, has further observed that as per the version of the Investigating Officer no tyre marks of the motorcycle were found near the dead body though the allegation was that the accused respondent No.1 - Ram Niwas accompanied deceased - Ratna Ram on motorcycle and murdered him. 13. It is true that extra judicial confession is always treated as weak piece of evidence and the Courts are normally reluctant, in the absence of corroborating evidence, to rely on the said piece of evidence for the purpose of recording a conviction. 14. 13. It is true that extra judicial confession is always treated as weak piece of evidence and the Courts are normally reluctant, in the absence of corroborating evidence, to rely on the said piece of evidence for the purpose of recording a conviction. 14. As stated earlier and taking into consideration the observations of the trial court that the relationship between the so called witnesses, in front of whom the respondent No.2 made confession, and the respondent No.2 are not cordial and there was no occasion for him to make confession before them, we are of the view that the trial court has not committed any error in disbelieving the evidence of the aforesaid so called witnesses, before whom the respondent No.2 made extra judicial confession. 15. The prosecution has failed to produce any other evidence except the so called extra judicial confession to prove the charges against the respondent No.2 and also failed to produce any corroborative evidence in support of the alleged extra judicial confession. 16. In view of the above, we don’t find any merit in this criminal appeal preferred by the appellant-State and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 17. Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.