Jawana Ram and Others vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—All above three appeals are filed by the accused appellants against the common judgment dated 17.3.2005 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 3/2005 by which the learned trial court convicted all the appellants for offence under Sections 302, 302/34, 120B IPC and 201/34 IPC and passed the following sentence, which reads as under:-

As per brief facts of the case, the complainant Ram Prasad (PW-15) lodged a written report (Ex.P/26) on 26.9.2004 at Police Station Kuchera camp Rohi Auladan alleging therein that his brother Sita Ram used to live at the Dhani situated in his agricultural field with his family. The wife of Sita Ram developed illicit relation with Sita Ram Meghwal, resident of Chhaprikhurd and due to said illicit relationship dispute arose in between the husband and wife from last 3-4 years.

The complainant further stated that his brother Sita Ram is having two sons Sohan Lal and Mukesh and on 26.9.2004 in the night at about 2.30 PM Sohan Lal and Prem Sukh come to him and informed that in the evening at about 6''O Clock Sita Ram Meghwal came in the Dhani and accused Sugnai W/o Sita Ram asked to bring Siya Ram, Bhagwan Ram and Jawan Ram from village Gaju.

Upon asking Sohan Ram and Prem Sukh went to village Gaju on motorcycle and brought Siya Ram and Jawan Ram alongwith them. It is alleged that all the persons slept in the Dhani and in the night at about 1.30 am Sohan and Prem Sukh heard noise of shouting of Sitaram deceased from the roof. Upon hearing Prem Sukh and Sohan went to the roof and saw that Sita Ram Meghwal was inflicting injuries by Barchhi to Sita Ram deceased and Jawan Ram was having an axe in his hand and he was also giving blows by axe.

Siya Ram has caught hold of Sita Ram and Sugnai although was there but did not intervene in the matter. As per allegation in the written report all the 3 persons dragged Sita Ram down from roof and on hearing cry Shitan Ram and his wife came on spot. Thereafter, the complainant went to the place where the body of Sita Ram was lying. In the FIR allegation for serious beating levelled against Sita Ram Meghwal, Siya Ram Sugnai and Jawan Ram by the complainant Ram Prasad (PW-15).

On receiving such written report, the FIR No. 87/2004 (Ex.P/28) was registered at Police Station Kuchera, thereafter, investigation was commenced.

In the investigation the accused Sita Ram Meghwal arrested vide Ex.P/14. Accused Jawana Ram arrested vide Ex.P/23. Accused Sugnai wife of deceased was arrested vide Ex.P/24 and after arrest upon information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, weapon Barchhi was recovered at the instance of accused Sita Ram vide Ex.P/15. The cloths pent of accused Sita Ram was recovered vide Ex.P/16. Motorcycle of Sita Ram was also recovered vide Ex.P/17. Similarly, upon information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by accused Sugnai wife of deceased axe was recovered vide Ex.P/19. Vide Ex.P/21 another axe was recovered upon information given by accused Jawana Ram and post mortem of body of Sita Ram was conducted by Dr. Gopal PW-14 and post mortem report Ex.P/25 was given by him in which details of injuries were also incorporated. The recovered articles-weapons and cloths were sent for chemical examination to the FSL and in return the report Ex.P/34 was given by the FSL.

Likewise the Investigating Officer prepared site plan (Ex.P/2) and vide Ex.P/3 details of site plan were incorporated. The body of the deceased was taken in possession vide Ex.P/1 and blood stained cloths wearing by the deceased at the time of incident were taken in possession vide Ex.P/8 and P/9 and after post mortem the body was handed over to the family members vide document Ex.P/10 and after completion of all the formalities the challan was filed in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur by the Investigating Officer of Police Station, Kuchera. The Magistrate committed the case to the court of ADJ, Nagaur under the order of District Judge, Merta on 13.12.2004.

The learned trial court framed the charges under Sections 460, 120B, 302 and 210/234 IPC against the accused appellants after providing opportunity of hearing. All the accused appellants denied charges levelled against them and prayed for trial.

In the trial to prove prosecution case the statements of 20 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 35 documents were exhibited to prove the prosecution case.

After recording evidence of prosecution, the learned trial court recorded statements of all the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but all the accused appellants said that allegations are totally false and prayed to produce evidence in their defence. In support of defence, the statements of three witnesses DW-1 Panney Singh, DW-2 Madan Lal and DW-3 Om Prakash were recorded in defence and 10 documents were exhibited. After that final arguments were heard and vide judgment dated 17.3.2005, the learned trial court convicted all the accused appellants for the offences under Section 302/34, 120B IPC and us 201/34 IPC and passed aforesaid punishment.

All the learned counsels for the appellants vehemently argued that the impugned judgment of learned trial court is contrary to law and evidence on record because the findings are based upon the statement of those witnesses who were not present at the time of incident took place, therefore, it is obvious that court below has committed serious error to convict the appellants with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. While inviting attention towards the statement of PW-1 Mukesh son of deceased it is submitted that the said witness categorically stated in the court that he has not seen the appellant going to the roof or coming from the tubewell. Further, said that in the morning of next day of occurrence the inauguration of the tubewell of the appellant was to be held, therefore, it is obvious that finding given by the learned trial court is far from the truth. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the PW-14 Dr. Ram Kumar Goyal who has conducted the post mortem of the body of deceased Sita Ram did not give any opinion that injuries received by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. As per doctor''s opinion the cause of death was shock, therefore, in the judgment reported in 1976 Cr. Law Reporter 643 Bhawani Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan if death occurred on account of shock of hemorrhage, the offence under Section 326 IPC is made out and the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 IPC is absolutely illegal, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the trial court has wrongly relied upon the statements of prosecution witness so as to hold appellants guilty because there are material contradiction in the statement of eye witness, the statements are not reconciling to each other, so also, there are material contradiction in the documents prepared by the police in the investigation, therefore, it is a case in which there is serious doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution story, therefore, the finding to hold accused appellant guilty of the learned trial court is totally based upon the presumption and conjectures.

While inviting attention towards the statements of PW -14 Dr. Gopal it is submitted that so far as injuries found on the body of the deceased is concerned, it is stated by the doctor that these injuries could have been received by falling from tractor, therefore, such statement create serious doubt upon the prosecution story. It is also argued that there is delay in lodging FIR for which no satisfactory explanation was on record, therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed.

Lastly, it is argued that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but here in this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to consider the prosecution evidence in right perspective because as per allegation of prosecution the accused Suganai has developed illicit relation with Sita Ram Meghwal due to which deceased Sita Ram was angry and some may time he beat the appellant Sita Ram, therefore, it is a case in which prosecution has failed to prove the motive beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently submits that in this case, the prosecution has proved the occurrence and participation of all the accused appellant by leading trustworthy and reliable evidence more specifically the evidence of two important eye witnesses namely PW-1 Mukesh son of deceased and PW-17 Prem Sukh, so also, statements of witness PW-15 Ram Prasad were recorded who has supported the allegation to commit offence of murder against the accused appellants. The incident reported by the PW-15 Ram Prasad author of FIR is supported by the evidence of eye witnesses PW-1 Mukesh and PW-17 Prem Sukh. Both these witnesses categorically stated in the court that the injuries were inflicted by the accused appellants by sharp edged weapon which is Barchhi and axe, their statements are further corroborated by the Dr. Ram Kumar Goyal (PW-14), who performed the post mortem of the body of Sita Ram deceased. The said witness categorically give details of injuries found upon the body of the deceased in the post mortem report (Ex.P/25). As per report 11 injuries were found upon the body of the deceased Sita Ram, out of which 7 injuries were incised wound which can be caused by sharp edged weapon. Meaning thereby, it is submitted that prosecution has categorically proved the case before the trial court on the ground that the accused appellants were having sharp edged weapon and by causing injuries brutally murdered Sita Ram in the night of 26.9.2004 and illicit relations of accused appellant Sugnai with Sita Ram Meghwwal was the motive, therefore, no error has been committed by the learned trial court in convicting the accused appellants for the alleged offence of murder.

Learned Public Prosecutor argued that it is a case in which prosecution led trustworthy and reliable evidence and after scanning evidence properly the learned trial court give verdict that accused appellants are guilty for committing offence under Section 302, 302/34 and 120B IPC, so also, 201/34 IPC, therefore, the instant cr. appeals may kindly be dismissed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have minutely examined the entire evidence in the light of arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor, so also perused the finding given by the learned trial court. Admittedly, in this case, none of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. More so, there are two eye witnesses namely PW-1 Mukesh and PW -7 Prem Sukh. The witness PW-1 Mukesh son of the deceased and accused Sugnai categorically stated before the court that due to illicit relations of his mother with accused Sita Ram Meghwal, his father and mother were not having talking terms from last some years and on 25.9.2004 appellant Sita Ram Meghwal and his mother were sitting under the tree (Bawaliya) and Sita Ram Meghawal asked his mother that your husband is unnecessarily harassing you, therefore, he will give lesson to him. As per statement of eye witness PW-1 Mukesh in the evening accused Sita Ram came on the tubewell and meet his mother and asked about Jawana Ram and Siya Ram. At that time, his mother Sugnai with Prem Sukh Jawana Ram and Siya Ram. The accused Sita Ram came there on motor cycle No. RJ-21 3M 1943. In the night at about 10.30 pm when he was sleeping in the house heard noise of shouting of his father. He was raising voices and asking "Shaitan Shaitan", at that time, his brother Sohan Lal and Prem Sukh were in the house, but mother was not found in the house and upon hearing cry of my father we rushed to the roof from where noise was coming and saw that Jawana, Sita Ram Megahwal and my mother were inflicting injuries to my father. They were having Farsi and Kulhari in their hands. The eye witness PW-1 Mukesh son of deceased give following statement to support the prosecution case. The relevant part of the statements, reads as under:

The eye witness PW-1 Mukesh son of deceased and accused Sugnai categorically supported the prosecution case and gave answers to all the questions put in the cross-examination and reiterated the allegations levelled by him with regard to the fact that appellants were beating his father Sita Ram on the roof and at that time he went on roof of the house alongwith the cousin brother Prem Sukh PW-17.

Although this eye witness is son of deceased but his testimony cannot be disbelieved because he is child witness and without any fear he has narrated whole of the story and supported the prosecution case.

We have also perused the statement of other eye witness PW-17 Prem Sukh, who went on roof alongwith PW-1 Mukesh. The witness PW-17 Prem Sukh was 15 years of age and the said witness narrated whole story before the court in examination-in-chief, which reads as under:-

In the cross-examination, the said child eye witness strongly reiterated the allegations levelled by him in examination-in-chief and supported the prosecution story, therefore, the testimony of this witness is trustworthy which can be relied to convict the accused appellants.

Soon after the occurrence PW-18 Shaitan Ram come on spot when he heard noise from the house of deceased. The following allegations are made by the witness Shaitan Ram PW-18 in examination-in-chief, which reads as under:

Upon perusal of cross-examination from this witness by the counsel for the accused it is obvious that the said witness reiterated his version an did not controvert any allegation, therefore, his testimony is also required to be accepted. The other witness PW-19 Sohan Ram @ Sikandar, son of deceased supported the prosecution case before the court. Therefore, it is a case in which there are 4 trustworthy eye witnesses or other witnesses who went on spot soon after the occurrence, therefore, there is no quarrel with regard to the fact that incident took place on 25.9.2004 in the night in the house of deceased in which the deceased was assaulted severely by the accused appellants and due to the said incident he died on spot.

To support the prosecution case the statement of PW -14 Dr. Ram Kumar Goyal were also recorded in the trial court the said witness said that on 26.9.2004 he performed post mortem of one Sita Ram S/o Umed Ram upon the request made by the SHO, Kuchera and gave its report which is Ex.P/25, in which 11 injuries were found upon the body of deceased, which reads as under:-

Upon perusal of the above opinion of the doctor it is abundantly clear that deceased Sita Ram died due to the injuries caused by him by the accused appellants and as per opinion of the doctor the cause of death was shock due to the injuries upon the brain and spinal cord. Upon above medical evidence of the prosecution there is no doubt, more so, the statement of doctor Goyal categorically supported the prosecution case.

We have perused the statement of PW-2 Devkaran, PW-4 Sita Ram, PW-5 Himatta Ram, PW-6 Chandra Gupt, PW-7 Inder Lal, PW-8 Kesha Ram and PW-9 Idan Ram. All these witnesses proved the proceedings of investigation and documents produced in the investigation. None of the witnesses turned hostile, more so, supported the prosecution case.

PW-10 Siya Ram is the witness of recovery who has categorically supported the prosecution case that weapons and motor cycle were recovered in his presence as per the information of the accused appellants and documents Ex.P/16 to P/22 were prepared in his presence when the recovery of weapons and motor cycle was made at the instance of accused appellants. Meaning thereby, the prosecution led trustworthy transparent evidence so as to held accused appellant guilty.

PW-11 Mangi lal is the witness before whom accused Jawana Ram was arrested vide Ex.P/23. The witness PW-12 Ganesh Ram is the witness before whom accused Sugnai was arrested vide Ex.P/24.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that by trustworthy and reliable evidence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

PW-16 Jabbar Singh is the neighbor of deceased Sita Ram stated before the court that in the night at about 1.00 am heard noise of deceased. He was crying and call and in the morning Shaitan informed that Sita Ram has been murdered by his wife and his two nephews.

We have perused the statement of investigating officer PW-20 Chhotu Ram. The said witness has stated before the court that he has conducted thorough investigation in the case in accordance with law and proved all the documents prepared during investigation and from the cross-examination of this witness nothing has come out to disbelieve his testimony. More so, the investigating officer supported the prosecution case.

We have perused the statement of DW-1 Panney Singh and DW-2 Madan Lal, both these witnesses are not relevant so as to adjudge the present controversy because all the witnesses of the prosecution supported the prosecution case.

On the basis of assessment of entire evidence it emerges that prosecution evidence loudly speaks about the incident in which a husband was brutally murdered with the connivance of wife by the other accused persons and the said incident was seen by the son of the deceased by his eyes, therefore, it is a case in which prosecution has led evidence of those witnesses who were not only present at the time of occurrence took place, but they also suffered agony to see the murder of their father with the support of their mother.

In our opinion, in such type of case where prosecution has satisfied all the elements of truth before the Court while leading trustworthy evidence, then no lenient view can be taken. In these appeals, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt while leading reliable, trustworthy and transparent evidence, therefore, no interference is called for in the finding arrived at by the learned trial court.

In view of the above, there is no force or substance in these cr. appeals and jail appeal filed by the appellants.

Hence, the cr. appeals and jail appeal are hereby dismissed.