Kaluram And Others vs State Of Rajasthan

The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide the judgment dated 22.09.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.87/2017 :-

Name of the appellantapplicant

Offence for which convicted

Sentence awarded and fine imposed

(1) Kaluram

(2) Smt. Radha Sukhla

Section 302/120-B IPC

Life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years

Section 201/120-B IPC

Three years’ rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment

Section 394 IPC

Ten years’ rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment

They have preferred the applications under Section 389 CrPC seeking suspension of sentences awarded to them by the trial court.

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted replies in both the applications.

A perusal of the reply filed to the application for suspension of sentences filed on behalf of the accused Kaluram indicates that he does not have any criminal antecedents. The accused was on bail during the course of trial and there is no allegation that he misused the liberty so granted to him during the pendency of the trial.

The accused Radha is in custody right from the date of her arrest, i.e. June 2017 and she has a small child with her in prison.

Learned counsel Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas, learned counsel representing the appellant Kaluram, and Mr. K.R. Bhati, learned counsel representing the appellant Smt. Radha Sukhla, vehemently and fervently urged that there is no plausible evidence whatsoever on the record of the case to connect the appellants with the crime of murder of Shri Gangaram. The entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, which is sheerly based on conjectures and surmises. They pointed out that the dead body of Shri Gangaram was found lying abandoned in his own car on 16.06.2017. The FIR (Ex.P/55) was lodged by his son against unknown assailants. The Investigation Officer conducted laconic investigation and filed charge-sheet against the appellants purely on the basis of whims, conjectures and surmises. The appellant Kaluram has been linked in this case on the basis of recovery of currency notes to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and a mobile phone. However, neither the IMEI number of the mobile phone was brought on record nor the sim number allegedly being used by the appellant was proved during trial. Thus, as per Shri Umesh Kant Vyas, the prosecution allegation that the appellant Kaluram conspired with the accused Kaptan Sukhla for the murder of Shri Gangaram Teli is perfunctory and conjectural as the same is not based on any plausible evidence whatsoever. He submitted that the impugned judgment dated 22.09.2021, whereby the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as above is on the face of it perverse. The trial court reproduced the text of the depositions of various witnesses and without making any analysis and without drawing any conclusions, the opinion given by the Investigating Officers Kailash Chandra (P.W.22), Ranjeet Singh (P.W.23) and Shiv Lal (P.W.24) was accepted at para No.56 of the impugned judgment and conclusion of guilt was drawn against the accused. He, thus, urged that the appellant deserves bail in this case.

Shri K.R. Bhati submitted that so far as the appellant Smt. Radha Sukhla is concerned, her implication in this case is on the face of the record unjustified because neither did the prosecution lead any evidence to show that the said accused was ever present with her husband Kaptan Sukhla and the deceased Gangaram any time before the incident nor did the Investigating Officer effect any incriminating recovery at her instance. He urged that merely because certain amount of money was deposited in the joint account of Radha and Kaptan Sukhla, no inference linking her with the conspiracy of murder can be drawn. He further submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for last more than 5 years and there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future. On these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant sought indulgence of bail for the appellant Smt. Radha.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. However, he too is not in a position to dispute that fact that as against the appellant Kaluram, only evidence which was produced by the prosecution was in the form of recovery of currency notes to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and a mobile phone instrument vide memorandum Ex.P/8. However, he admits that in this memorandum, there is no reference to the fact that the currency notes had any particular identifying marks. Furthermore, qua the mobile phone, neither its IMEI number is mentioned in the memorandum nor the sim number is recorded therein.

It is, thus, evident that the evidence on the basis whereof the accused Kaluram has been roped into this case is totally perfunctory and does not in any manner, connect him with the alleged crime.

So far as the accused Radha Sukhla is concerned, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that she has criminal antecedents inasmuch as another case for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is pending against her. However, the learned Public Prosecutor had no option but to admit that apart from the allegation that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was deposited in a bank account being jointly operated by Smt. Radha and her husband accused Kaptan Sukhla, there is no plausible evidence, either direct or circumstantial, which can even remotely connect her with the alleged crime. The accused, being a lady, is in custody since last more than 5 years. When she was admitted to the prison, she had a small child with her and in all probability, the child also must be suffering incarceration in prison with the mother.

Be that as it may. On perusal of the impugned judgment, we find that apart from reproducing the text/extracts of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, uptill para number 55 of the impugned judgment, there is hardly any discussion, which can indicate existence of plausible circumstantial evidence connecting the appellants herein with the crime. At para No.56 of the impugned judgment, the trial court held that the three Investigating Officers, namely, Kailash Chandra (P.W.22), Ranjeet Singh (P.W.23) and Shiv Lal (P.W.24), have given deposition regarding the steps of investigation undertaken by them and nothing was elicited in their cross-examination, which could create a doubt thereupon and hence, it was apparent that the offences were proved against the accused.

We are of the prima facie view that these findings as recorded by the trial court, are perfunctory, conjectural, perverse and laconic on the face of the record.

Be that as it may. The appellants manifestly have strong and plausible grounds for assailing the impugned judgment. Hearing of the appeal is bound to consume time. Hence, we are inclined to enlarge the appellants on bail during pendency of the appeal.

Accordingly, the applications for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh vide judgment dated 22.09.2021 in Sessions Case No.87/2017 against the appellant-applicants (1) Kaluram S/o Bherulal Teli and (2) Smt. Radha Sukhla W/o Kaptan Sukhla shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail, provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his/her appearance in this court on 02.01.2023 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

That he/she will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

That if any of the applicant changes the place of residence, he/she will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.

Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court.

The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicants in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case any of them accused applicant does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.