Rajupuri vs State of Rajasthan

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J—Rajupuri son of Jangalpuri was tried by the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Ajmer, for having committed the murder of Smt. Kamla @ Shanti on the intervening night of 17th and 18th July, 2007 between 12:30 PM to 8:00 AM in room No. 35 of Lodha Dharmshala, Ajmer.

The case of the prosecution is that the cause of death of Smt. Kamla @ Shanti was asphyxia due to strangulation and before committing murder she was administered some stupefying drug in order to rob her of silver anklet and cash. The trial court vide impugned judgment dated 14.10.2008 held the appellant Rajupuri guilty of offence under Sections 302, 328 and 397 IPC and having convicted the appellant for the above said offences, vide a separate order of even date trial court sentenced the appellant as under:-

U/s. 302 IPC - to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months S.I.

U/s. 397 IPC - to undergo seven years imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months S.I.

U/s. 328 IPC - to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months S.I.

Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the appellant Rajupuri has preferred the present appeal.

The criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/1) submitted by Trilok Singh (P.W. 1) Manager of Lodha Dharmshala, Ajmer, before Pratap Mai (P.W. 18) who was then posted as SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Ajmer.

Pratap Mai (P.W. 18) in the court deposed that on 18.7.2007, he was posted as SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Ajmer and at 9:15 AM he received a telephonic call from Trilok Singh (P.W. 1) Manager of Lodha Dharmshala that in room No. 35, a dead body of female is lying. He further informed that on 17.7.2007 at 12:30 PM, the said room was booked by Rajupuri and Kamla. Rajupuri after committing murder decamped from the spot. The information received on telephone was noted in the Daily Diary Register and thereafter, by constituting a police party, this witness (P.W. 18) proceeded to the spot.

The written report (Exhibit-P/1) when translated into English reads as under:-

"To

SHO Saheb, Police Station Kotwali, Ajmer.

Sir,

It is submitted that yesterday on 17.7.2007 in our Dharmshala named Lodha Dharmshala at 12:30 PM, one male person aged 28 years, who disclosed his name as Rajupuri stayed with one lady Kamla aged 60 years. They disclosed their address as Village and Post Sakoon, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur. The said person disclosed his phone number as 9829304725 and was staying in room No. 35 and the said male person had signed the register. On 18.7.2007 in the morning at about 8:00/8:15 AM, Kailash employee of Dharmshala informed that the door of room No. 35 is open and one lady has been seen lying on the cot, upon which employee of Dharmshala Shri Salim Khan and Shri Ram Singh went inside the room and saw that the said lady is lying dead, upon which information was given to the police. As per details given in the register, the name of lady has been entered as Smt. Kamla, whereas male person who came with her has given his name as Rajupuri. It was observed that the said lady was strangulated with a towel and thereafter, the said person had absconded from the spot. I and my employee of Dharmshala can identify the said person in case he is brought before us. The report is presented. Legal action be taken.

Sd/- Trilok Singh Assistant Manager, Lodha Dharmshala, Ajmer."

The written report (Exhibit-P/1) was sent to the police station through Constable Rameshwar Lal, on the basis of which a formal FIR (Exhibit-P/29) bearing No. 121/07 was registered at the Police Station, Kotwali, Ajmer.

After registration of the FIR (Exhibit-P/29), a team of FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) inspected the spot. From the spot, plastic cups of tea were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/5. The said memo was attested by Ram Singh (P.W. 4) and Salim. Pratap Mai (P.W. 18) being investigating officer further observed that few traces of silver were lying at the spot and it seemed that anklet worn by the deceased with the help of fennel were cut from the right foot. The said traces of silver were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/6. Two blades of fennel were also taken into possession from the room vide memo Exhibit-P/8, two wrappers of tablets were also found, they were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/9. A purse containing three coins of Rs. 1/- each was also taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/7. A single bed sheet and a cover of pillow were also taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/10. All memos were attested by Ram Singh (P.W. 4) Assistant Manager and Salim. During investigation the dead body was identified by Banshipuri (P.W. 7). He disclosed the name of lady as Shantipuri and identified her to be his wife. The dead body was handed over to Banshipuri (P.W. 7) for cremation vide memo Exhibit-P/14. On 25.7.2007 at about 1:00 PM, in presence of Udai Lal (P.W. 13), Sumer Singh, the appellant Rajupuri was arrested vide memo Exhibit-P/23 by Pratap Mai (P.W. 18) the investigating officer. During interrogation Rajupuri suffered a disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/33), wherein he stated that part of silver anklet weighing 140 gms was sold by him to Anil Kumar jeweler (P.W. 9) at Mateshwari Jewelers, Dudu for Rs. 2100/-. The accused further told the police that he can get the same recovered from Anil Kumar Jeweler (P.W. 9). The accused led the police party to the shop of Mateshwari Jewellers, Dudu and from Anil Kumar jeweler (P.W. 9), Proprietor, vide memo Exhibit-P/17, part of the silver anklet belonging to the deceased was recovered. The investigating officer had prepared the site plan of the shop of Anil jeweler and recorded the statement of Anil Kumar Soni (P.W. 9) under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Rajupuri, the accused on 31.7.2007 suffered another disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/34) and stated that documents in his handwriting are lying in his house and he can get the same recovered. In pursuance of the disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/34), Rajupuri got recovered the documents (Exhibit-P/35 to Exhibit-P/37) in his handwriting from his house vide seizure memo Exhibit-P/19. Seizure memo (Exhibit-P/17) regarding recovery of piece of silver was attested by Satyanarayan (P.W. 10) and Narayan Lai. The investigating officer also took into possession the Register maintained by Dharmshala regarding stay of the tourists vide memo Exhibit-P/16, which was attested by Gopal Singh (P.W. 8) and Pintu Kumar Lakhan.

After the arrest of the appellant was effected, his Test Identification Parade was carried on 27.7.2007 and in the said identification parade, Trilok Singh (P.W. 1) and Hemaram (P.W. 3) identified the appellant Rajupuri as one who had stayed with the lady at Dharmshala.

On the basis of above investigation carried, the prosecution commenced its evidence.

Trilok Singh appeared in the court as P.W. 1 and deposed that he was employed as Assistant Manager at Lodha Dharmshala, Ajmer. On 17.7.2007, at about 12:30 PM, Rajupuri accused present in the court along with one lady Kamlapuri came and had taken room No. 35. The said room was shown to them by Hemaram (P.W. 3) room boy. Rajupuri made entry in the Register and disclosed that he is resident of Sakoon. The accused had signed the said register. He gave his address and mobile number. They both disclosed that they have come to Ajmer to pay obeisance at Dargah. This witness issued a tariff receipt of Rs. 50/- and thereafter Rajupuri and Kamlapuri had gone to room No. 35. On 18.7.2007, room boy Kailash came and disclosed that the lady lying on the cot in room No. 35 is not moving. This witness, Ram Singh and Salim Khan had gone inside the room and saw that the lady was lying dead. They informed the police. The police took into possession three tea cups of plastic and a wrapper of medicine. From the right foot of the lady, silver anklet was missing. In the room, two pieces of blade of fennel were also found. Purse of the lady was found in the room containing three coins of Rs. 1/- each. The police had taken the said articles into possession. Inquest proceedings (Exhibit-P/3) were carried. This witness further stated that on 27.7.2007, he had identified Rajupuri in the central jail and identification proceedings (Exhibit-P/4) were signed by him along with Hemaram (P.W. 3). This witness further proved on record the register maintained regarding arrival and departure of guests as Article-1.

In cross-examination, this witness (P.W. 1) stated that he had mentioned mobile number and address of the person who stayed in room No. 35 on the basis of record. This witness further stated in the court that Rajupuri present in the court was the one who had stayed in room No. 35 and he himself had gone to jail and was not taken there by police for identification.

Kailash (P.W. 2) stated that he was employed in Lodha Dharmshala for the last ten years. On 18.7.2007 he informed the office that a lady is lying in the room No. 35. This witness had attested the memos whereby recovery was effected from the room.

Hemaram (P.W. 3) stated that he was working at Lodha Dharmashala for the last 15-16 years. On 17.7.2007, at about 12:00 PM, he had shown room to Rajupuri. After he had selected the room, he brought Rajupuri to the Manager of Dharmshala. He made an entry and he stayed in the said room with a lady. On the next day, Kailash (P.W. 2) after checking room, gave information upon which he had gone to room and found the lady dead. A silver anklet from the foot of lady was removed. Rajupuri was not present at the spot. This witness further stated that Rajupuri was identified by him in Test Identification Parade (Exhibit-P/4).

Ram Singh (P.W. 4) was also posted as Assistant Manager at Lodha Dharmshala, Ajmer. This witness had attested the memos whereby recoveries were effected from the room. The details of which have already been given earlier.

Gopal Giri (P.W. 5) had attested the inquest. He deposed in the court that the dead body was of Shantipuri, his sister and police in his presence had taken into possession one red colour Gamachha vide memo Exhibit-P/12 and a Ghaghra of deceased was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit-P/13.

Amarapuri (P.W. 6) stated that Shobha was his niece. Shobha was married with younger brother of accused Rampuri. Rajupuri had visited the house of his brother Banshipuri (P.W. 7) in village Khakharia. He told Banshipuri that he had to perform Sawamani (a ritual in which sawa man cooked food is distributed) at Ajmer and for participating in Sawamani, Banshipuri (P.W. 7) had left his wife Shantipuri on 17.7.2007 at Kalera crossing. Banshipuri (P.W. 7) returned and disclosed to Amarapuri (P.W. 6) that he has left Shantipuri with Rajupuri at Kalera. This witness further stated that his nephew Shrawanpuri on 18.7.2007 informed that he received a telephonic call from Mukeshpuri that Rajupuri had committed murder of his mother. Upon which, this witness, Banshipuri and his nephew had gone to Police Station Kotwali, Ajmer. They were taken to mortuary, where they had identified the dead body to be of Shantipuri. This witness further informed that anklet from the left foot was missing.

Banshipuri (P.W. 7) deposed in the court that on 16.7.2007 Rajupuri came to his house and had requested him to send his wife for participating in Sawamani at Ajmer. On the next day, i.e. On 17.7.2007, he left his wife at village Kalera with the accused Rajupuri. Next day, he was informed by his son that his wife has been murdered by Rajupuri. He had gone to police station, where he had seen photographs of his wife and thereafter, had accompanied the police party to mortuary, where he identified the dead body of his wife.

Gopal Singh (P.W. 8) stated in the court that in his presence, police had taken register of Dharmshala containing entries regarding arrival and departure of tourists vide memo Exhibit-P/16.

Anil Kumar (P.W. 9) in the court stated that on 31.7.2007, from his shop police had recovered part of silver anklet, which was sold to him by Rajupuri for Rs. 2100/-.

Satyanarayan (P.W. 10) stated in the court that in his presence from the shop of Anil Kumar (P.W. 9) accused got recovered part of silver anklet.

Dr. R.K. Mathur (P.W. 11) had conducted autopsy on the dead body and as per his opinion cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. This witness further stated that as per report (Exhibit-P/22) of the FSL, from viscera of deceased, presence of Benzodiazepine, a tranquillizer drug was found. This witness stated that the said drug is used for inducing the sleep.

Uday Lal (P.W. 13) stated that on 26.7.2007 vide memo Exhibit-P/23 he had arrested Rajupuri and thereafter the accused was asked to keep his face muffled.

Kuldeep Singh (P.W. 16) stated in the court that after Test Identification Parade was carried and the accused Rajupuri was identified, his formal arrest was effected on 28.7.2007, vide memo Exhibit-P/30.

Mangal Chand (P.W. 14) had carried the sealed packets to FSL. Kan Singh (P.W. 17) being Head Constable was incharge of Malkhana. He along with Mangal Chand (P.W. 14) has proved the link evidence. Pratap Mai (P.W. 18) as stated earlier has proved on record various facets of investigation.

Priyanka Jodhawat (P.W. 19) being posted as Assistant Collector, Ajmer cum Executive Magistrate had conducted Test Identification Parade proceedings in jail on 27.7.2007 and in the said identification proceedings, the witnesses had identified Rajupuri as one who had committed the offence.

Shilpa Choudhary (P.W. 20) was posted as CO. (North), Ajmer and in his presence the accused furnished his specimen handwriting.

From the above evidence, following incriminating circumstances has emerged against the accused Rajupuri:-

(a) That the handwriting of the accused in the register (Exhibit-P/16) has tallied with the documents taken from his house and specimen handwriting and the opinion of the Handwriting Expert has been proved on the record as Exhibit-P/49. According to the opinion of the handwriting expert, handwriting in the register and the specimen handwriting belong to one and same person.

(b) That Hemaram (P.W. 3) room boy and Trilok Singh (P.W. 1) Assistant Manager of Lodha Dharmshala in Test Identification Parade (Exhibit-P/4) had identified the appellant Rajupuri as the one who arrived along with the lady in Dharmshala and had occupied room No. 35. They further testified to the fact that the appellant left the room and dead body of the lady was found inside the room.

(c) Banshipuri (P.W. 7) has deposed that on 16.7.2007 accused came to his house and on his request that the Shantipuri should participate in the ritual of Sawamani, on 17.7.2007 he had left his wife Kamlapuri @ Shanti with the accused Rajupuri at village Kalera.

(d) That from the left foot of the deceased Kamlapuri @ Shanti, a silver anklet was found missing and the said silver anklet was sold by the appellant Rajupuri to Anil Kumar (P.W. 9) and in pursuance of disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/33) made by the accused, the said silver anklet was recovered from the shop of Anil Kumar (P.W. 9) to whom he had sold the same for Rs. 2100/-.

We have heard Mr. B.R. Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Alladdeen Khan, the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the testimony of Trilok Singh (P.W. 1) and Hemaram (P.W. 3) on the ground that number of persons stay in Dharmshala and they cannot recall their faces and thus, Test Identification Parade carried was a sham.

We are not impressed with this argument. The accused appellant had taken the room in the Dharmshala on 17.7.2007 and he left room on 18.7.2007. Seven days thereafter, on 25.7.2007 vide memo Exhibit-P/23, arrest of the appellant Rajupuri was effected. Test Identification Parade proceedings was carried two days later on 27.7.2007 and thereafter, formal arrest of the appellant was effected vide memo Exhibit-P/13 on 28.7.2007.

Thus, in the present case, Test Identification Parade have been carried within seven days of the alleged crime. Thus, witnesses having found the dead body in the room on 18.7.2007, were well acquainted with the face of the one who had left Dharmshala after murdering the lady, who had accompanied the accused. Assistant Manager of Dharmshala Trilok Singh (P.W. 1) and room boy Hemaram (P.W. 3) are the most independent persons. As per their testimony, the appellant Rajupuri stayed with the deceased Kamlapuri @ Shanti in the room at night 17.7.2007 and had left the room on 18.7.2007. It is for the appellant to explain as to how the deceased Kamlapuri @ Shanti had died. Furthermore, Anil Kumar (P.W. 9) a jeweler to whom the appellant had sold the silver anklet cannot be condemned as a accomplice as the recovery of silver anklet was effected from his shop in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by accused on 31.7.2007 within thirteen days of the occurrence. It is the appellant who suffered the disclosure statement and led the police party to the shop of Mateshwari Jewellers. Promptness in holding test identification parade make witnesses trustworthy.

The appellant Rajupuri is a relative of the deceased Kamlapuri @ Shanti. It has come in the evidence of Amarapuri (P.W. 6) that his daughter Shobha is married with younger brother of the appellant Rajupuri. It has further come in the evidence of Banshipuri (P.W. 7) that the appellant had come to his house to invite the deceased to participate in the Sawamani. Banshipuri (P.W. 7) had left his wife Kamlapuri @ Shanti with the accused. It is to be noted that Shobha daughter of the deceased was married with Mukeshpuri, younger brother of the appellant. Thus, Amarapuri (P.W. 6) and Banshipuri (P.W. 7) being close relatives have proved on the record that the accused had accompanied the deceased to Ajmer for conducting ceremony of Sawamani. Thus, we reject the argument that Amarapuri (P.W. 6) and Banshipuri (P.W. 7) are interested witnesses.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sahai and Others, AIR 1981 SC 1442 : (1981) CriLJ 1034 : (1981) 1 SCALE 939 : (1982) 1 SCC 352 in para 21 of which, Apex Court while making distinction between ''relation'' and ''interested witnesses'' has held, as under:-

"21.....Moreover, having regard to the circumstances in which the occurrence took place, both P.Ws. 1 and 2 are very natural witnesses whose presence on the scene of occurrence was extremely probable. Even assuming that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are interested witnesses, applying the rule of caution we are satisfied that their evidence is creditworthy. Shorn of a few discrepancies or contradictions which are not of a vital nature, their evidence is by and large consistent and congruent, straightforward and poignant. A careful perusal of their evidence reveals to us that their evidence has a ring of truth from start to finish. We, therefore, fully endorse the finding of the trial court that these witnesses are reliable and truthful."

Hon''ble the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and Another, AIR 1981 SC 1390 : (1981) CriLJ 1012 : (1981) 1 SCALE 645 : (1981) 2 SCC 752 : (1981) SCC(Cri) 593 : (1981) 3 SCR 504 , has held, as under:-

"''Related'' is not equivalent to ''interested''. A witness may be called ''interested'' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be ''interested''. In the instant case PW 1 had no interest in protecting the real culprit, and falsely implicating the respondents."

Hon''ble Apex Court further held in Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others, (2013) 9 AD 493 : AIR 2013 SC 3681 : (2013) CriLJ 4618 : (2013) 4 RCR(Criminal) 853 : (2013) 11 SCALE 132 : (2014) 1 SCJ 756 that the evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is being closely related to the deceased.

Supreme Court further held in Shahabuddin & Anr. Vs. State of Assam: Criminal Appeal No. 629/2010 decided on 13/12/2012 that merely because most of the witnesses are related to the deceased, would not by itself cause any prejudice to the case of the prosecution. Supreme Court in the case of Gajoo Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) CriLJ 88 : (2012) 4 JCC 2658 : (2012) 9 JT 10 : (2012) 4 RCR(Criminal) 921 : (2012) 9 SCALE 32 : (2012) 9 SCC 532 a State of A.P. Vs. S. Rayappa and Others, AIR 2006 SC 3709 : (2006) CriLJ 1616 : (2006) 2 JT 392 : (2006) 2 SCALE 321 : (2006) 4 SCC 512 : (2006) AIRSCW 929 : (2006) 2 Supreme 71 has held that testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness.

The learned counsel for the appellant accepts that Amarapuri (P.W. 6) and Banshipuri (P.W. 7) are relatives of the accused too and therefore, he could not advance any other meaningful argument.

Relying upon the above judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court, we have already held that the relations cannot be termed as interested witnesses. We are firmly of the view that the prosecution has succeeded to prove on record the chain of circumstances to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant alone has committed the offence.

Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed by affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court.