Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 580 (RAJ)

Charan Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-02-21

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2023
ORDER : (Ashutosh Kumar, J.) This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants Charan Singh and Smt. Shakuntala Devi against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Behror, District Alwar in Sessions Case No.21/2015: State v. Charan Singh and Ors. by which learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as under: "- for offecne under Section 302 read with 34 IPC to L.I. each with fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine 3 years R.I. each. - for offence under Section 498A IPC to 3 years R.I. each with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine 6 months additional S.I. each. - for offence under Section 406 IPC to 3 years R.I. each with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine 6 months additional S.I. each. - for offence under Section 201 IPC to 3 years R.I. each with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine 6 months additional S.I. each." 2. The case of prosecution in nutshell before the learned trial Court was that complainant Jagdish Prasad filed an FIR (Ex.P.-3) in Police Station Neemrana disclosing therein that his daughter Sarita was married to appellant Charan Singh on 29.04.2013. After marriage, in-laws of his daughter were torturing her to bring a Swift Dzire car. The deceased was continuously telling about such demands to Jagdish Prasad (father of deceased) and her mother. Since, he could not meet the demand of the appellant, the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased strangulated and killed her on 05.01.2015. FIR No.9/2015 was registered and after investigation a charge sheet against husband of the deceased, Charan Singh was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B, 406, 302 and 201 IPC and investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., against Shankuntala Devi and Udai Chand. They were made accused in this case and summoned for trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 3. All the three accused persons were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 201 and 304-B and in alternative 302 IPC. 4. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. 5. Accused persons were examined under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. All the three accused persons were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 201 and 304-B and in alternative 302 IPC. 4. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. 5. Accused persons were examined under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. However, defence has relied on Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-21. 6. Learned trial Court in its judgment dated 30.11.2017 acquitted accused Udai Chand for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 201, 302 read with Section 34 IPC. However, appellants Charan Singh and Shakuntala Devi were convicted and punished as mentioned here-in-above. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC because there is no evidence, by which the case against the accused can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Counsel for the appellants contends that learned trial Court has convicted the appellants, merely on the basis of baseless assumptions. It has also been contended that since the learned trial Court has not found any case against the accused persons under Section 304-B IPC, it means that there was no evidence on record to prove that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty. They contend that this proves the fact that there was no motive to kill the deceased. He further contends that there is no direct evidence in this case and the learned trial Court has drawn its conclusion of conviction only by presuming certain facts. He further contends that there can be no presumption against the accused to convict him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has relied upon and drawn our attention to the principles of law laid down in the case of Satye Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand: 2022 Live Law (SC) 169 wherein, it has been held that the conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested on the touchstone of law relating to the circumstantial evidence. He contends that all circumstances must lead to the conclusion that the accused is the only one who has committed the crime and none else. He contends that all circumstances must lead to the conclusion that the accused is the only one who has committed the crime and none else. He avers that circumstances howsoever strong cannot take place of proof and that the guilt of the accused has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel has also relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra: (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 679 wherein, it has been held that Section 106 does not absolve prosecution from discharging its primary burden of proving prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, will there arise a question of considering facts of which burden of proof would lie upon accused. It has also been held in this case that it is well settled principle of law, that false explanation or non-explanation of any circumstance can only be used as additional incriminating circumstance, when prosecution has proved chain of circumstances leading to no other conclusion but the guilt of accused. 9. On the other hand, learned Addl. Government Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the complainant have supported the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants and contended that the appeal be dismissed. It has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that the deceased was continuously harassed for demand of dowry and has died in the house of her in-laws and that too in unnatural circumstances. Only the appellants had the opportunity and motive to kill the deceased. Therefore, the appeal be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka v. M.V. Manjunathegowda and Ors.: AIR 2003 SC 809 . 10. We have considered the arguments put forth from both the sides and perused the record. 11. So far as, the cause of death of the deceased is concerned, as per the postmortem report Ex.P-12 cause of death is axphyxia due to strangulation. PMR has been proved by oral evidence of PW-11 Dr. Adarsh Agarwal, PW-13 Dr. Krishan Kumar and PW-21 Dr. Ravish Yadav. However, PW-11 Dr. Adarsh Agarwal and PW-21 Dr. 11. So far as, the cause of death of the deceased is concerned, as per the postmortem report Ex.P-12 cause of death is axphyxia due to strangulation. PMR has been proved by oral evidence of PW-11 Dr. Adarsh Agarwal, PW-13 Dr. Krishan Kumar and PW-21 Dr. Ravish Yadav. However, PW-11 Dr. Adarsh Agarwal and PW-21 Dr. Ravish Yadav in their cross-examination have admitted that as per ligature mark found around the neck of the deceased possibility of hanging cannot be ruled out. It is the case of prosecution that the deceased was strangulated whereas case of defence is that the deceased committed suicide by hanging. 12. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 302 and 201 IPC for which no presumption against the accused persons is available to the prosecution in order to convict them. Therefore, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove all these charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Admittedly, this case is not based on direct evidence but, on circumstantial evidence. When the case is based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution is duty bound to prove that all circumstances lead to the conclusion that the accused is the only one who has committed the offence and none else. Now, we have to see whether the prosecution has discharged its burden to prove the charges levelled against the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt or not. The learned trial Court in para no. 58 of the impugned judgment has narrated all the circumstances and conduct of the accused appellants on which the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion of convicting the accused appellants. 13. Learned trial Court has mentioned in the judgment that the room where the deceased was found was in topsy-turvy condition and pieces of broken bangles were found lying, slippers were lying hither and thither, but no such circumstances were found by Investigating Officer on the scene of occurrence because in the site plan Ex.P-6 no pieces of broken bangles or topsy-turvy condition of the room or slippers have been mentioned. 14. It is also the case of the prosecution that the deceased was strangulated by the accused appellants. During investigation the Investigating Officer did not try to know the means and manner of strangulation. The article by which alleged strangulation was committed has also not been recovered by the police. 14. It is also the case of the prosecution that the deceased was strangulated by the accused appellants. During investigation the Investigating Officer did not try to know the means and manner of strangulation. The article by which alleged strangulation was committed has also not been recovered by the police. This fact also goes against the prosecution. 15. In para no.58 of the judgment, learned trial Court has also mentioned the fact that the appellants did not claim body of the deceased and the body was handed over to Jagdish Prasad, father of the deceased vide Ex.P.-5. Whereas, Ex.P.-20, by which body of the deceased was handed over to Udai Chand, father-in-law of the deceased for last rituals, has been proved by PW-17 Head Constable Rohitash Singh. Therefore, this conclusion of the learned trial Court that appellants did not claim the body of the deceased seems to be erroneous. 16. The evidence which has been produced by the prosecution witnesses in this case was against all the accused persons namely Udai Chand, Shakuntala Devi and Charan Singh but the learned trial Court did not consider this evidence to be true against accused Udai Chand who has been acquitted. It seems that the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that Udai Chand, at the time of incident was in Delhi and not at the scene of occurrence. Therefore, prosecution evidence was disbelieved by the learned trial Court against the accused Udai Chand. Although, the same evidence has been relied upon, to base conviction against the appellants without there being any cogent evidence to prove the presence of the appellants in the house at the time of occurrence. Prosecution in this case has failed to prove either by direct or by circumstantial evidence that in fact, both the appellants were present, at the time of incident at the scene of occurrence. The learned trial Court has observed in the judgment that since the appellants have not produced any evidence in their defence to prove the fact that they were not present at the scene of crime at the time of incident, they must have committed the offence. The learned trial Court based its conviction on non production of cogent evidence by defense. No such assumption of guilt can be drawn to base conviction under Section 302 IPC. The learned trial Court based its conviction on non production of cogent evidence by defense. No such assumption of guilt can be drawn to base conviction under Section 302 IPC. It was not the duty of the appellants to lead evidence to prove their alibi but it was the duty of prosecution to prove by all cogent evidence that the appellants were present, in the house where the death of the deceased took place, at the time of the incident, and that they are the persons who have murdered the deceased. 17. So far as charges against the appellants under section 498A and 406 IPC are concerned, it has come on record that there was no demand for dowry at the time of marriage. For the offences under sections 498A and 406 IPC, general omnibus statements have been given by the parents and other relatives of the deceased. 18. There is no evidence as to exactly when and in what manner demand of dowry was made. As per statement of PW-3 Jagdish Kumar who is the father of deceased, it is admitted that no bills were submitted in the Court in support of expenditure incurred in marriage of deceased and accused. No trust worthy and cogent evidence has been given which shows that the appellants harassed and committed cruelty with the deceased in connection with demand for dowry. It is also noteworthy here that the trial Court has not relied upon the prosecution evidence with regard to the demand for dowry against accused Udai Chand, who has been acquitted by the trial Court on the basis of same prosecution evidence in this case. 19. From the above discussion, this Court has come to the firm conclusion that: 1) There is no direct evidence to implicate the appellants in this case. 2) It has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellants are the persons who have murdered the deceased and no one else. 3) Trial Court has based its judgment of conviction against the appellants on the basis of certain assumptions whereas it was the duty of trial Court to convict the appellants only when the prosecution has discharged its burden to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons beyond the shadows of reasonable doubt. 20. 3) Trial Court has based its judgment of conviction against the appellants on the basis of certain assumptions whereas it was the duty of trial Court to convict the appellants only when the prosecution has discharged its burden to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons beyond the shadows of reasonable doubt. 20. In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants in this case for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 302 and 201 read with section 34 IPC. 21. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.11.2017 is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Appellants are in jail, they be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 22. The appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and one surety in the like amount in accordance with section 437A CrPc, before Registrar Judicial within a period of two weeks from the date of release to the effect that in the event of filing of Special leave petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The bail bonds will remain effective for a period of 6 months.