Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1539 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Gopi Ram son of Puna Ram

2024-11-11

MUNNURI LAXMAN, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Munnuri Laxman, J. 1. The present criminal appeal challenges the judgment of acquittal dated 02.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur on the file of Sessions Case No.11/2007, whereby the respondents/accused Suman and Gopi Ram were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC respectively. 2. The State has preferred the present appeal against the acquittal. 3. For the convenience, accused-Gopi Ram is referred as A-1 and accused-Smt. Suman is referred as A-2, who are the respondents in the present appeal. 4. Concisely, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased -Sita Ram (who was aged 6-7 years) and Mira (who was aged 4-5 years) were born to Gopi Ram (A-1) from his first wife. Subsequently, he married Suman (A-2). Both accused along with children were residing in the precincts of Hari Narayan Maharaj Ashram in Nagaur on rent. On 27.11.2006, Puna Ram, who is father of A-1, along with 3-4 persons came to police station and informed that they were told that the deceased children had fell in the water tank and they died. On 24.11.2006, the accused shifted the dead-bodies into the jeep and set off for cremation but dead-bodies could not reach the village where they lived. On the basis of such information, Narad Gopal, A.S.I., reached the residence of rented premises of accused and found that they were absent from home and door was locked. On 28.11.2006, Gopi Ram (A-1) along with villagers came to the police station and informed that the deceased children fell in the water tank and their dead-bodies were found in the water tank. Later, he along with his wife wrapped the dead bodies of children and hid the dead bodies in the bushes and thereafter, they went to Jaipur. 5. On the basis of such information, the dead bodies were recovered on 28.11.2006. The postmortem was conducted. On postmortem, it was revealed that deceased-Sita Ram succumbed to the head injury and deceased-Mira died from asphyxia caused by antemortem strangulation. Basing on such facts, Sub-Inspector Narad Gopal (PW-6) lodged a report under Exhibit-P/8. On the basis of the said report, the present FIR bearing 556/2006 was registered for offences under Sections 302/34, 201 of IPC. On postmortem, it was revealed that deceased-Sita Ram succumbed to the head injury and deceased-Mira died from asphyxia caused by antemortem strangulation. Basing on such facts, Sub-Inspector Narad Gopal (PW-6) lodged a report under Exhibit-P/8. On the basis of the said report, the present FIR bearing 556/2006 was registered for offences under Sections 302/34, 201 of IPC. Thereafter, scene of offence was conducted and disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded on 30.11.2006. The statements of relevant witnesses were recorded. Subsequently, chargesheet was filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 201/34 of IPC. Charges were framed for the offences under Section 302, 201/34 of IPC against accused-Smt. Suman and for offence under Section 201/34 of IPC against accused-Gopi Ram. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined in all 16 witnesses and relied upon Exhibits-P/1 to P/36. In defence, accused did not examine oral evidence but produced documents Exhibit-D/1 & D/2. 7. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and scanning the evidence on record, the learned trial court has acquitted the respondents/accused. Against the said acquittal, the present appeal has been filed by the State. 8. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge failed to take into consideration the evidence with regard to staying of the deceased with accused-persons immediately prior to the incident. The case set up by the accused was that the deceased fell in the water tank and died which claim was proved to be incorrect as the postmortem report reflects that the deceased died on account of injury on the head and strangulation. Apart from that, there is evidence on record to show that the accused had shifted the dead-bodies in hurried manner in the vehicle and they hid the dead bodies in the bushes and the dead bodies were recovered basing on the disclosure statements of the accused. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the evidence of PW-7 Kanwari Lal and PW-8 Aslam Khan clearly go to show that both the accused have shifted the dead bodies from their home in their vehicle. The above evidence clearly go to show that the prosecution case has been established its case beyond reasonable doubt. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the evidence of PW-7 Kanwari Lal and PW-8 Aslam Khan clearly go to show that both the accused have shifted the dead bodies from their home in their vehicle. The above evidence clearly go to show that the prosecution case has been established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court has not properly appreciated such evidence available on record and wrongly acquitted the accused. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused submitted that the entire case of the prosecution must collapse for the reason that FIR was issued on 30.11.2006 (Exhibit-P/34) on the basis of the information given by the Investigating Officer on 30.11.2006 under Exhibit-P/8. Such FIR was lodged after the recovery of dead bodies. Whereas, the disclosure statements under Exhibits-P/10 & P/11 clearly show that they were recorded on 30.11.2006, which is contrary to own admission of the Investigating Officer that disclosure statements were made on 28.11.2006 and on the same day, dead bodies were recovered. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/accused also submitted that there are conflicting claims from the Investigating Officer that the accused and the villagers have come to the police station and informed about the discoveries of the dead bodies. That means the dead bodies were known to everyone even prior to the disclosure statements. Therefore, the disclosure statements suffer from illegalities. 13. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondents/accused that the evidence of PW-6 shows that father of A-1 along with villagers had come to the police station and submitted an oral report about the incident. However, no FIR was registered basing on the said report. After entire investigation was done, the FIR was lodged in this case. The commencement of the investigation must be subsequent to the FIR and any evidence collected prior to the investigation cannot be said to be the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. The entire case suffers from various infirmities. The trial court considering such infirmities acquitted the accused. Such acquittal cannot be set aside. 14. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the impugned judgment as well as the material available on record. 15. A close scrutiny of evidence on record show that there is serious abdication of duty by the Investigating Officer. The trial court considering such infirmities acquitted the accused. Such acquittal cannot be set aside. 14. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the impugned judgment as well as the material available on record. 15. A close scrutiny of evidence on record show that there is serious abdication of duty by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer committed illegalities by not following the procedure contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code. His conduct shows that he did not know the basic of the investigation. According to PW-6 Narad Gopal, the First Investigating Officer, an oral information was given by father of A-1 with regard to the incident. The said information was given on 27.11.2006 but no FIR was issued basing on such information. The evidence of PW-6 also shows that on the day of such information, only he visited the rented premises of the accused but the same were found locked. No reasons have been given for not issuing the FIR basing on such oral information furnished by father of A-1. The documents Exhibit- P/10 and P/11 show that on the basis of disclosure statements of A-1 and A-2, dead bodies were recovered. Such statements claimed to have been recorded on 30.11.2006. The own evidence of PW-6 Narad Gopal in his First Information Report under Exhibit-P/8 and substantive evidence he has given before the court clearly show that on 28.11.2006, A-1 and the villagers came to the police station and disclosed about the discovery of the dead bodies. On 28.11.2006, everybody knows where the dead bodies were lying. The report Exhibit-P/8 also shows that postmortem on the dead bodies was also done on 28.11.2006. When such is the case, how could the statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded on 30.11.2006, was not made clear. Exhibit-P/10 and P/11 created by PW-6 are the concocted documents. None of the witnesses have supported the prosecution case except PW-7 Kanwari Lal and PW-8 Aslam Khan. PW-7 is the person who engaged the vehicle to shift the dead bodies on the request of the accused. He supported the evidence with regard to engagement of PW-8 Aslam Khan to carry the dead bodies to the village Nathawada. Similarly, PW-8 also supported the shifting of dead bodies only. Except those circumstance, other connecting evidence is not available on record. He supported the evidence with regard to engagement of PW-8 Aslam Khan to carry the dead bodies to the village Nathawada. Similarly, PW-8 also supported the shifting of dead bodies only. Except those circumstance, other connecting evidence is not available on record. The entire pre-investigation done by PW-6 Narad Gopal is contrary to his own evidence on record. 16. It is duty of the investigation agency to secure and record the complete evidence, to investigate in a sincere manner, to identify the culprits/accused and assist the prosecution. However, in the instant case, the investigation agency has utterly failed to do so. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the investigation was flawed, shoddy and there were lapses on the part of the investigation Officer. It is noted by this Court that the Investigation Officer has miserably failed in the discharge of his duties. It is also observed that the Investigating Officers lacked required investigative skills as they were not aware about basic statutory pre-requisites to commence investigation. The failure on the part of the Investigating Officer has frustrated the entire case of the prosecution and the evidence so recorded is not fulfilling linkage in the chain of circumstances. 17. This Court is dealing with the case of acquittal. Even though there is other view plausible basing on the available evidence, the view taken by the trial court is also plausible and therefore, this Court cannot overturn the decision of the trial court basing on the alternative view. 18. In the result, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 19. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./Section 481 B.N.S.S., the respondents are directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.40,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the learned Trial Court, which shall be made effective for a period of six months, to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or for grant of leave, the respondents, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as soon as they would be called upon to do so.