D.B.Criminal Appeal No.770/2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.
*** JUDGMENT
RAM LAL V/S STATE OF RAJASTHAN D.B.Criminal Appeal No.770/2007 under section 374 (2) Cr.PC against the judgement dated 25.8.2007 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Raisingnagar District Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.20/2006.
*** Date of Judgment : 30.01.2014 HON'BLE Mr.GOVIND MATHUR,J HON'BLE Mr.ATUL KUMAR JAIN ,J Mr.H.R.Bishnoi for appellant Mr.K.R.Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT: (Per Hon'ble Mr.Jain.J.Accused Ram Lal was convicted on 25.8.2007 in Sessions case No.20/2006 relating to FIR No.171/2006 of Police Station, Raisingnagar by Additional Session Judge, Raisingnagar District Sriganganagar under section 302 Indian Penal Code for causing murder of his wife.
He was sentenced under section 302 IPC by the said court by life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, an additional simple imprisonment of one year was also ordered by the trial court.
D.B.Criminal Appeal No.770/2007 2 In this appeal, it has been argued on behalf of the accused-appellant Ram Lal that the judgment of the trial court is against the facts as well as against law, the trial court has not appreciated evidence properly, the trial court has relied upon the interested and relative witnesses of the prosecution side, there are material contradictions in the statement of the sole eye witness Smt.
Soma Devi who was sister of the deceased Sita Devi, 'Kassi' by which injuries are alleged to have been caused was not shown to the doctor during her statement by the prosecution, and that there was no cause to disbelieve testimony of parents of the accused-appellant who were admittedly present on the spot.
On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the respondent i.e.the State of Rajasthan that the case was proved beyond doubt in the trial court and real brother of the accused-appellant and wife of his brother have given testimony against the accused-appellant and there is no cause to disbelieve them.
It has also been argued that the parents of the accused-appellant were highly interested in the welfare of their son so they have been declared hostile in the trial court.
It has also been D.B.Criminal Appeal No.770/2007 3 argued that soon after the incident, the accused-appellant had tried to run away along with the weapon of the offence but he was taken by his own brother to the police and this fact also goes against the accused-appellant.
It has further been argued that the accused-appellant has taken an improbable defence story which has not been substantiated by him at all.
In the light of arguments raised by both the sides, we have perused the record of the case.
Here summary discussion of the evidence led by the parties in the case will be helpful to reach correct conclusion in this case.
Smt.
Soma Devi, PW4 is real sister of the deceased Sita Devi.
Both had been married in the same family with two real brotheRs.Smt.
Sita Devi was married to accused- appellant Ram Lal while Smt.
Soma Devi was married to Tulsa Ram who is the younger brother of accused- appellant Ram Lal.
Smt.
Sita Devi is having two children also.
Both the brothers used to live in the same 'Dhani' but in different portions.
Smt.
Soma Devi states that the accused-appellant Ram Lal often used to quarrel with Smt.
Sita Devi and he used to beat her.
She further states D.B.Criminal Appeal No.770/2007 4 that in the night when Smt.
Sita Devi was killed in the early hours of morning, the accused-appellant started to quarrel and beat his wife Sita Devi in night also.
She further states that parents of accused-appellant Ram Lal and her husband Tulsa Ram tried to persuade the accused- appellant not to beat his wife and because of their persuasion, Ram Lal went to the bed.
At about 4:00 A.M., again she awoke because of cries of her sister and all the family members rushed to the spot to find that Ram Lal had attacked with the help of a 'Kassi' on the neck of his wife Smt.
Sita Devi causing blood to ooze out from her neck.
She states that they immediately rushed with Smt.
Sita Devi to the hospital but the doctor told them that Smt.
Sita Devi has expired.
In the cross examination, Smt.
Soma Devi, PW4 has not deviated at all from her examination in chief.
She is fully trustworthy witness.
Next important witness is PW7 Tulsa Ram.
He is husband of Smt.
Soma Devi and brother of the accused- appellant.
He fully corroborates the statement of his wife.
He admits that he did not see the actual attack made by D.B.Criminal Appeal No.770/2007 5 his brother on Smt.
Sita Devi but he says that soon after the incident, he had rushed to the spot and soon after the incident, he carried Sita Devi to the hospital where she was declared dead.
He specifically denies the suggestion made by the accused-appellant that Smt.
Sita Devi had been injured while going for toilet and by falling on 'Kassi'.
He specifically states that while going to the hospital, he took Ram Lal also with him and thereafter Ram Lal was handed over to the Police because Ram Lal had committed murder of his wife.
This witness Tulsa Ram is also a trustworthy witness and there is no reason why he should not be relied upon.
Shankar Ram, PW9 is father while Smt.
Manohari Devi, PW10 is mother of accused-appellant and for obvious reasons, both these witnesses have been declared hostile.
They have denied their police statements (Ex.P/10 & Ex.P/11) respectively.
They have tried to support the defence story that Smt.
Sita Devi got injuries by fall but their statements are not reliable at all and they are not truth speaking witnesses.
D.B.Criminal Appeal No.770/2007 6 PW1 Dharma Ram is father of deceased Smt.
Sita Devi.
He supports the prosecution story.
He states that on receiving a telephonic message from his son in law Tulsa Ram at about 5:00 AM in the early morning, he rushed to the house of his son in law where he found his daughter Smt.
Sita Devi in serious injured condition and he further states that perhaps, she had expired by that time.
He states that his younger daughter Smt.
Soma Devi and his son in law Tulsa Ram told him that Ram Lal had attacked with the help of a 'Kassi' on the neck of Smt.
Sita Devi and then Ram Lal had run away along with the 'Kassi'.
In the cross examination, this witness has totally denied the defense story and he has also not been shattered from his examination in chief.
There is no reason why he should not be relied upon.
PW2 Mala Ram is a formal witness of Panchnama (Ex.P/3) of the dead body.
PW3 Sumera Ram is brother of deceased Smt.
Sita Devi.
He directly reached to the hospital to find his sister dead.
He states that Smt.
Soma Devi and Tulsa Ram had told him about the incident.
He also supports the D.B.Criminal Appeal No.770/2007 7 prosecution story.
In his cross examination, he has said nothing in favour of the accused-appellant.
He also directly implicates the accused-appellant for the murder of his sister Smt.
Sita Devi.
PW5 Kishna Ram is a motbir of the village and distant relative of Smt.
Sita Devi.
He says that he had accompanied Dharma Ram when the news of murder of his daughter spread in the village.
He also states that Smt.
Soma Devi had told him that deceased Smt.
Sita Devi was killed by accused-appellant Ram Lal.
He also denies reliability of the defense story.
PW6 Momta Ram is also a Panch witness of the Panchnama of the dead body.
He has been confronted with his police statement Ex.D/5 but nothing important has come out in his cross examination in favour of the accused-appellant.
PW8 Raj Singh is a formal witness of the site plan.
PW12 Dharmveer Singh is also carrier of Malkhana articles of this case.
His statement is not much important in the matter.
Similarly, PW13 Yad Ram, HC is also carrier D.B.Criminal Appeal No.770/2007 8 of Malkhana Articles and his statements are also not of much importance in the matter.
PW14 Radheyshyam is a photographer and he has exhibited photo of dead body of Smt.
Sita Devi which are Ex.P15 to Ex.P18.
PW11 Dr.
Virendra, Kumar Khatri is the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of deceased Smt.
Sita Devi.
He states that there was an incised wound of the size 5 cm x 1.5 cm which was bone deep on the left side of the neck, it was serious injury and it was ante-mortem.
He states that because of excessive bleeding caused by the injuries , Sita Devi had expired.
In his cross examination, Dr.
Khatri states that if 'Kassi' is blunt then such injuries could not have been caused by it because such injury could have been caused by a sharp weapon only.
In the circumstances, it cannot be said that by not showing 'Kassi' to the Doctor prosecution has caused any prejudice to the rights of the accused.
PW15Mohan Lal, the then SHO Police Station Raisingnagar is a witness who had conducted investigation of the case.
In his examination in chief, he has exhibited all the relevant documents of the case.
He states that on the information of accused-appellant, he D.B.Criminal Appeal No.770/2007 9 had recovered the 'Kassi' also from his agriculture farm.
In his cross examination, he states that the accused- appellant had doubt on the character of his wife and that was the cause of quarrel between the two.
It is pertinent to note here that the accused-appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC as well as statement under section 315 Cr.PC states that it is wrong that he was having any doubt on the character of his wife.
He states that his wife slipped over the 'Kassi' which was lying there when she was going for toilet and that is why she was injured.
He states that he himself had made a telephonic call to call his father in law.
Apparently, the statement of the accused-appellant Ram Lal is not reliable.
His defence story is also not reliable at all.
He has not been able to probablize his defense story also.
The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has placed reliance upon the following rulings:- (1) Ram Lal V/s State of Rajasthan 2012 (3) R.Cr.D.288 (Raj.):- D.B.Criminal Appeal No.770/2007 10 This was a case based on the sole testimony of a child of five yeaRs.In the circumstances of the case, as a matter of abundant caution, conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code was converted into conviction under section 304 of IPC (Part-I) by this court.
In that case, in sudden quarrel, a single blow of 'Kulhari' caused by husband was held to have been caused without pre- medition and so the accused was convicted only by ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine under section 304 Part-I of IPC.
(2) Bhola Singh V/s State of Rajasthan 2013 (2) R.C.R.D.Raj.36:- In this case also, there was no pre-medition for causing crime and the incident occurred during altercation.
The intention to kill was not proved and the accused had not run away from the spot.
In the circumstances of the case, conviction under section 302 of Indian Penal Code was converted into conviction under section 304 (Part-II) of IPC and the accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years and fine.
D.B.Criminal Appeal No.770/2007 11 (3) Walu V/s State of Rajasthan 2013 (2) R.Cr.D.Rajasthan 69.
In this case, the prosecution could not prove the case beyond doubt and hence, the accused was acquitted from the charge of committing the offence punishable under section 302 of IPC by this court.
In the case in hand, there has been altercation between the husband and wife before they had gone to sleep at 9:00 PM in the night.
Then in the early morning at about 05:00 AM , the accused-appellant had inflicted vital injury on the neck of his wife while she was perhaps asleep and the blow was so severe that she died in the single blow and so the accused-appellant felt no necessity to repeat the blow and in the circumstances of the case, looking to the evidence which has come against the accused-appellant and looking to the reasons given by the trial court for conviction of the accused-appellant under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, we are not in a position to take a different view from that one which has been taken by the trial court.
D.B.Criminal Appeal No.770/2007 12 Thus, the appeal filed by the accused-appellant is devoid of any force.
Arguments of accused-appellant raised in the appeal are not sustainable and hence, the appeal deserves dismissal which is hereby dismissed and the judgment of Additional Session Judge, Raisingnagar District Sriganganagar dated 25.8.2007 in Sessions Case No.20/2006 is upheld as such.
Record of the trial court be sent back with a copy of this judgment at the earliest.
Copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned Jail also where the accused-appellant is suffering the sentence.
(ATUL KUMAR JAIN),J.
(GOVIND MATHUR),J.
Anil Singh