Godu Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - she also stated that dhalki had complained to her that godu ram had entered her bed two, three days earlier in the night and on receiving this complaint from dhalki, rukma had scolded godu ram on that. the testimony of aforesaid three witnesses clearly appears to be reliable and trustworthy.v.s. kokje, j.1. appellant godu ram has been convicted under section 302 and section 324 of the ipc and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with rs. 50/- as fine and rigorous imprisonment for six months respectively for the offences.2. on 16-8-96 at about 4.00 p.m. a telephone call was received by a.s.i. vishnudev at police station mahamandir, jodhpur informing that a murder has taken place in the locality. a.s.i. vishnudev with the police party went to the spot and recorded statement of rukma pw 1 which was then registered as fir. in the statement rukma w/o. ganga ram stated that she has her own house in shakti nagar where she lives with her family. in one of the rooms in the house accused godu ram s/o. punaram who was employed in the state police lived. godu ram was also taking meals with her family and was making a payment of rs. i50/- as a paying guest. at about 3.30 p.m. on the date of the incident she was sitting outside the door of her house cutting fodder. in the inner room of the house, kamli w/o. banshilal and geeta w/o. manakji were sitting, doing some work. both of them called rukma to tell her that noise of some altercation was coming from her house. on this, rukma went inside and saw that the room of godu ram was open, tape-recorder was running on high volume and some noise was coming out from her kitchen. she knocked at the door of the kitchen which was closed from inside. godu ram rushed out from the kitchen with a bloodstained knife in his hand. godu ram assaulted her with intention to kill her, but she raised her left hand and received injuries on the finger of left hand. he threw her down and ran away. geeta and kamli came near her. they had seen godu ram running away, pushing her down,. she then went in the kitchen and saw that blood had spilled over the floor and dhalki w/o, her son govind was lying there. all the three of them saw that dhalki' s that had been cut and tripod was oozing out. she was already dead. she also stated that dhalki had complained to her that godu ram had entered her bed two, three days earlier in the night and on receiving this complaint from dhalki, rukma had scolded godu ram on that. godu ram then blamed dhalki and warned her not to falsely implicate him. because of this, the relations between godu ram and dhalki were strained and that was the motive for the crime. the accused-appellant took a defence of false implication and obliquely suggested that the offence was committed by govind ram because of suspicion that his wife was pregnant because of illicit relations with some one else.3. rukma pw-1, geeta pw-2 and kamla pw-3 are the important witnesses who were present at the spot but none of them had seen actual assault on dhalki. they had seen the accused coming out from the kitchen where dhalki was killed, with a bloodstained knife in his hand.4. rukma pw-1 repealed the story given by her earlier to the police. she also stated that dhalki had pregnancy of six months. in her cross-examination it was suggested to her that dhalki's husband had a suspicion about her character. but she stated that she did not know of it. she also denied the suggestion that govind and rekha killed dhalki and said that she did not know about it. it was also suggested to her that she was not present on the spot as she had gone to the field and returned at 4.00 p.m. and knew of the death of dhalki. she was further cross-examined on several points, but nothing of consequence which could discredit her statement came out.5. pw-2 smt. geeta stated that she herself and kamla were working in the house of rukma. when they heard noise in the house, she rushed to rukma and told her that some altercation is going on in her house. rukma rushed to her house and went towards kitchen and then shouted. at that time the accused godu ram was running from that place. when the police arrived, she had gone to the kitchen arid seen govind's wife lying dead there. in her cross-examination she has stated that rukma had shouted that somebody had killed her daughter-in-law (vernacular matter). she further stated that she had seen goduram not from a longer distance, but from a short distance and had seen his back only. she denied the suggestion that rukma was not there on the spot at the time of the incident and had gone to her field. she also denied the suggestion that at about 12.00 noon to 1.00 p.m. govinda had come to the house, stayed for half an hour there and had gone thereafter. she also pleaded ignorance about govinda's suspecting the character of his wife. she emphatically denied the suggestion that she had not seen goduram on that date and was giving the statement as tutored by rukma.6. pw-3 smt. kamla supported the prosecution story. in her cross-examination she emphatically reiterated that she had seen the accused person running away from the spot. she was not shaken at all in her cross-examination and stuck to the story given by her. she denied the suggestion that govinda had killed dhalki because he had a doubt about her character. the testimony of aforesaid three witnesses clearly appears to be reliable and trustworthy. a stray statement by geeta that rukma had shouted that somebody had killed her daughter-in-law cannot be given much importance in view of the over all tenor of the statement of all the three witnesses. the testimony of these three witnesses is sufficient to uphold the conviction. apart from the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses the prosecution has laid evidence about the appellant having been seen by pw-13 chunnilal running away from the spot immediately after the incident. the prosecution has also laid evidence about the recovery of weapon of the offence, the knife and recovery of bloodstained clothes of the appellant. according to the prosecution two confessional letters were also recovered from the possession of the appellant.7. the learned counsel for the this appellant contended that the telephonic message received at the police station was the first information of the crime and fir should have been registered on that basis alone. the learned sessions judge has rightly rejected this contention. in the circumstances of the case the laconic information received on telephone giving no details of the offence could not have been said to be the first information and the sho did the right thing in reaching the spot on the basis of the information and registering first information report of the basis of statement of pw-1 rukma. there is also no force in the contention that since the fir was sent to the magistrate on the next day inference of concoction could be drawn against the prosecution. the learned session judge has noted that the fir was lodged on 16-8-86 at 4.50 p.m. and it was sent at 9.20 p.m. on the next day, which was a sunday, to the magistrate. this cannot be said to be so unusual that the very credibility of the fir having been lodged at a particular time could be doubted. the learned sessions judge has also rightly noted that on all the documents prepared during investigation. fir number was mentioned which ruled out the possibility of the fir having been registered after the investigation.8. in the aforesaid state of evidence on record, we find that even if other evidence is not taken into the account, the statements of pw-1 smt. rukma. pw 2 smt. geeta and pw-3 kamla are sufficient to uphold the conviction. we, therefore, find no force in this appeal. it is dismissed.