Ram Mohan and Others vs State of Rajasthan

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—By this common judgment, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1150/2008, preferred by Rammohan, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1088/2008 instituted by Heera Lal, Kaluram and Pappuram, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 122/2009 filed by Siyaram and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 58/2010 preferred by Prakash @ Omprakash, shall be decided together.

As per prosecution case, on 20th of August, 2007 at 09:00 A.M. one Sriyaram s/o Dhanna sustained 95% burn injuries at his house, situated at Village Tan-dhularaoji, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Jamwaramgarh. Sriyaram succumbed to the burn injuries on 21.08.2007 at 05:55 A.M. and died at S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur.

The case of prosecution is based upon two Dying Declarations made by Sriyaram (deceased). The first dying declaration (Exhibit-P/1) is statement leading to registration of case and same was recorded by Santosh Kumar Chalke, a young Police Officer, who was then posted as Additional Superintendent of Police, Jaipur Rural; this statement of complainant, who died later was duly attested by Dr. Rambabu Garg (PW-6). Subsequent dying declaration (Exhibit-P/6) was recorded by Vikram Singh (PW-12), Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jaipur District Jaipur, after Doctor had declared Sriyaram (deceased) fit to make statement.

The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 1, Jaipur District Jaipur, vide its impugned judgment dated 04.10.2008, convicted accused-appellants, namely Heera Lal, Rammohan and Prakash @ Om Prakash for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Whereas remaining three accused-appellants, namely Kaluram, Pappuram and Siyaram were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

Having convicted the appellants for the above said offences, the trial Court, vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them as under:--

"Appellants: Heera Lal, Prakash @ Omprakash, and Rammohan:

For offence under Section 302 I.P.C. the appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional rigorous imprisonment.

Appellants: Kaluram, Pappuram and Siyaram:

For offence under Section 302 /149 I.P.C. the appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional rigorous imprisonment.

All Appellants: Heera Lal, Prakash @ Omprakash, Rammohan, Kaluram, Pappuram and Siyaram:

For offence under Section 147 I.P.C. the appellants were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment to each.

For offence under Section 451 I.P.C. the appellants were sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default to payment to fine to further undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment.

All sentences were ordered to run concurrently."

Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the appellants have instituted aforequoted appeals under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying inter alia that their conviction and sentence, be set aside, and they be acquitted of the charges leveled against them.

The prosecution agency, during trial, had examined in all seventeen-witnesses and proved on record forty-four documents, being Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/44 respectively.

The statement of deceased Sriyaram s/o Dhanna, aged fifty-years was firstly recorded at Bed No. 4, Burns Ward, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. The said statement leading to the registration of a formal First Information Report was recorded by Santosh Kumar (PW-16) later termed as Dying Declaration was attested by Dr. Rambabu Garg (PW-6).

We shall first take note of the Dying Declaration (Exhibit-P/1) on the basis of which a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/44) was registered at Police Station, Jamwaramgarh, being First Information Report No. 212/2007, dated 20.08.2007 for offences punishable under Sections 147 , 452 , 342 , 323 and 307 I.P.C.

The statement (Exhibit-P/1) recorded by Santosh Kumar Chalke (PW-16), a young Police Officer, who was then posted as Additional Superintendent of Police, Jaipur Rural, when translated into English reads as under:

"Statement/parcha-bayan of injured Sriya s/o Dhanna, by caste Mali, aged fifty-years, resident of Dhani-Ghiyamali-Ki, Tan-Dhularaoji, Police Station Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur:

Stated that I do agricultural work. Name of my wife is Gyarsi Devi. We are issue-less. We are three brothers. Name of the eldest brother is Ramnath. We all three brothers have eight-&-half bigha of land having joint ownership over it. We all three brothers are in cultivating possession of land of our own share. I reside in the pucca house built by me on my agricultural land. Heera Gurjar s/o Ramnath Gurjar, resident of Dhularaoji intended to forcibly purchase land falling within my share. He was saying that since you own 1/3rd land, the same be sold to him @ Rs. 50,000/-. I refused to sell land by saying that in case, I sell the land from where I shall earn my livelihood, but Heeralal was not agreeing. Today on 20.08.2007 at 09:00 A.M., I returned to my house from the Village, then Rammohan Brahmin, resident Lalwas, Hirya s/o Ramnath Gurjar, Pappu s/o Ramnath Gurjar, Kalya s/o Ramnath Gurjar resident of Dhularaoji, Prakash Jogi s/o Kanhaiya Lal Jogi resident of Dhularaoji and Siyaram s/o Lalya Kumhar resident of Dhularaoji came to my house and said that today we will forcibly purchase your land and will hand over you an amount of sale consideration. When I refused, Hirya caught hold of me, Ram Mohan Brahmin poured kerosene oil from the can and Prakash Jogi had ignited the fire. Nobody else was present there.

RO&AC

Thumb Impression: Siyaram. Attested by Santosh Kumar Chalke, Additional Superintendent of Police, Jaipur Rural:

Certificate: Statement of injured Sriya Mali was recorded in my presence and Sriya has appended his thumb impression.

Signed Dr. Rambabu"

The Investigating Officer, since apprehended that death of Sriya, because of sufferance of 95% burns is imminent, presented a letter (Exhibit-P/25) before Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, No. 5, Jaipur District Jaipur. The said application was sent to Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jaipur District and in pursuance thereof Vikram Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jaipur reached at hospital and recorded dying declaration (Exhibit-P/6). Before Judicial Magistrate, Vikram Singh (PW-12) commenced recording of the dying declaration, he obtained following Certificate from Dr. Rambabu Garg (PW-6) regarding fitness of deceased.

The Certificate, so given by Dr. Rambabu Garg reads as under:--

"It is stated that patient Sriya Ram s/o Dhanna Ram 60 yrars, Male Registration No. 71595 admitted in Burns Ward is at present mentally fit to give his statement.

Date: 20.08.2007

Time: 05:15 P.M."

Thereafter, the dying declaration of Sriyaram was recorded and the same when translated into English reads as under:--

"Question No. 1. How your body received burn injuries?

Answer: Today in the morning at 09:00 A.M. over the land, a dispute occurred with Gurjars. Heera told me to give the land. Heera was accompanied by Pappu, Kaliya Brahmin, Prakash and Shivkumar. Hirya caught hold of me. Ramu poured kerosene oil and Prakash ignited the fire. Phuli, the wife of my son doused the fire. After putting me on fire, they ran away. Hirya, Prakash, Rammohan Brahmin, Kaliya, Pappu Gurjar and Shivkumar had put me on fire.

Question No. 2. Do you want to say anything else?

Answer: Nothing."

Santosh Kumar Chalke, Additional Superintendent of Police, Jaipur Rural (PW-16) and Vikram Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jaipur Rural (PW-12) have proved the above said two dying declarations.

Besides above said dying declarations, Durga Lal (PW-1), who was running a shop near to the house of deceased, deposed in the Court that on 20.08.2007 he saw that Gyarsi wife of Sriya Ram was going while raising cries. On enquiry, she informed that her husband, Sriyaram has been put to fire by Heeralal, Rammohan Sharma, Prakash Yogi, Pappu Gurjar, Kaluram Gurjar and Siyaram Kumhar. This witness went to the spot and found that accused had left a ring, mobile and two coins. Furthermore, at the spot kerosene can was also lying. Sriya Ram was taken to the hospital where he had suffered 95% burns and died.

Gyarsi (PW-2), the wife of deceased also corroborated the dying declaration and stated in the Court that she had gone to the Village and on the way a boy met, who said that something has happened in her house. She came and found that Sriya has been set on fire. Heera, Pappu, Mohan, Prakash, Siya and Kalu had set her husband on fire. This witness further stated that these names have been disclosed to her by her husband.

Phuli Devi (PW-3), the daughter-in-law of deceased, she has also reiterated the similar version.

Motilal Saini (PW-4) is the witness to the recovery effected from the spot. This witness stated that vide memo Exhibit-P/3 from the spot one mobile, ring, one match-stick, a can of kerosene oil, pouch of tobacco, smocking pipe, cash, burnt skin of deceased etc. were recovered. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that Durgalal is his younger brother.

Sunil Kumar Sharma (PW-5) stated that he was working as stamp vendor, and sold the stamps to Lalluram Mali, the father of Siyaram. This witness was examined to say that the accused was compelling the deceased to sign on the stamp papers regarding sale of the land.

Dr. Rambabu Garg (PW-6), as already stated, had given Certificate regarding fitness of the deceased, Sriya to make dying declaration and he further admitted that the dying declaration was recorded in his presence.

Dr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma (PW-7) conducted the Autopsy and proved the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/7). This witness further stated that the deceased had received 2nd and 3rd degree burn injuries on the various parts of the body and died. The witness further opined that cause of death, in the present case, was shock, as a result of ante-mortem dry heat flame burns.

Hanuman Sahay (PW-9) had taken photographs of the spot and also proved negatives vide Exhibit-P/10 to Exhibit-P/21.

Dr. Rajendra Sharma (PW-10), being Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Jamwaramgarh, on 06.09.2007 had examined Kalu s/o Ramnath and found superficial healed burn injuries on his right thumb. This witness (PW-10) on 31.08.2007 had also examined Prakash s/o Kanhaiyalal and found three superficial burn injuries on his person.

Dr. Lokesh Chandra Agarwal (PW-11), being Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Jamwaramgarh on 10.09.2007 had examined Rammohan s/o Gangasahay and found two firearm injuries on his left hand, as per Injury Report (Exhibit-P/24).

Vikram Singh (PW-12), as already stated had recorded the dying declaration (Exhibit-P/6).

Ramavtar (PW-14), In-charge of the Malkhana and Constable, Ramcharan (PW-17) had taken the sealed packets from the Malkhana for depositing the same to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. Both Incharge, Ramavtar (PW-14) and Constable, Ramcharan (PW-17) were examined to prove the link evidence.

Santosh Kumar (PW-16) and Manoj Kumar Gupta (PW-15) carried the investigation and had proved various facets of investigation.

The statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They denied all the incriminating evidence put to them and pleaded innocence.

In defence, accused had examined four-witnesses, namely Shrawan Lal Saini (DW-1), Ramdayal (DW-2), Indrajeet Singh (DW-3) and Lallu (DW-4) to prove that the contents of the dying declarations are not true, as the deceased had executed an agreement to sell (Exhibit-D/4) in favour of Heera Lal.

Beside above facts, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that on the very next date of occurrence, the deceased had expired and received 95% burns, therefore, he was not fit to make the statement and, thus, we should exclude dying declaration from our consideration, as same have been fabricated.

In the present case, the dying declaration has been recorded by Vikram Singh (PW-12), who was then posted as Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jaipur District. However, earlier thereto dying declaration was recorded by Santosh Kumar Chalke (PW-16), who was then posted as Additional Superintendent of Police. The first dying declaration was attested by Doctor, and regarding second dying declaration, Certificate regarding fitness of deceased has been given. The Judicial Magistrate is a most independent witness.

Our opinion to place implicit reliance upon Dying Declarations is further fortified by observations made by five-judge Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra, , wherein it was held as under:--

"Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, let us now examine the two decisions of the court which persuaded the bench to make the reference to the Constitution Bench. In Paparambaka Rosamma and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the dying declaration in question had been recorded by a judicial magistrate and the magistrate had made a note that on the basis of answers elicited from the declarant to the questions put he was satisfied that the deceased is in a fit disposing state of mind to make a declaration. Doctor had appended a certificate to the effect that the patient was conscious while recording the statement, yet the court came to the conclusion that it would not be safe to accept the dying declaration as true and genuine and was made when the injured was in a fit state of mind since the certificate of the doctor was only to the effect that the patient is conscious while recording the statement. Apart form the aforesaid conclusion in law the court also had found serious lacunae and ultimately did not accept the dying declaration recorded by the magistrate. In the latter decision of this court in Koli Chunilal Savji and Another Vs. State of Gujarat, it was held that the ultimate test is whether the dying declaration can be held to be a truthful one and voluntarily given. It was further held that before recording the declaration the officer concerned must find that the declarant was in a fit condition to make the statement in question. The court relied upon the earlier decision. In Ravi Chander and Others Vs. State of Punjab, wherein it had been observed that for not examining by the doctor the dying declaration recorded by the executive magistrate and the dying declaration orally made need not be doubted. The magistrate being a disinterested witness and is a responsible officer and there being no circumstances or material to suspect that the magistrate had any animus against the accused or was in any way interested for fabricating a dying declaration, question of doubt on the declaration, recorded by the magistrate does not arise.

The court also in the aforesaid case relied upon the decision of this court in Harjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, case wherein the magistrate in his evidence had stated that he had ascertained from the doctor whether she was in a fit condition to make a statement and obtained an endorsement to that effect and merely because an endorsement was made not on the declaration but on the application would not render the dying declaration suspicious in any manner. For the reasons already indicated earlier, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the observations of this court in Paparambaka Rosamma and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, to the effect that "in the absence of a medical certification that the injured was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the declaration, it would be very much risky to accept the subjective satisfaction of a magistrate who opined that the injured was in a fit state of mind at the time of making a declaration" has been too broadly stated and is not the correct enunciation of law. It is indeed a hyper-technical view that the certification of the doctor was to the effect that the patient is conscious and there was no certification that the patient was in a fit state of mind specially when the magistrate categorically stated in his evidence indicating the questions he had put to the patient and from the answers elicited was satisfied that the patient was in a fit state of mind where-after he recorded the dying declaration. Therefore, the judgment of this court in Paparambaka Rosamma and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, must be held to be not correctly decided and we affirm the law laid down by this court in Koli Chunilal Savji and Another Vs. State of Gujarat, case."

Therefore, in the present case, both the dying declarations aspire confidence.

It is to be noted here that any person having apprehension of death will not say something which is false. Mere fact that an agreement to sell was executed will not falsify the assertion of deceased to the extent that the accused were not pressurizing the deceased to execute the sale-deed.

However, we find merit in the alternative argument advanced by Mr. Rajesh Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, that in the present case, both the dying declarations stated that six accused came and were sitting with the deceased and out of the said six accused only three accused have played overt role in the occurrence. It has been stated that in the dying declarations (Exhibit-P/1 and Exhibit-P/6) Hirya caught hold of the deceased, Rammohan poured kerosene oil and Prakash @ Omprakash had lit the fire.

Thus, so far as other three accused, namely Kaluram, Pappuram and Siyaram are concerned, they have played no role in the occurrence. Merely because these three accused were present, we cannot invoke Section 149 I.P.C., qua them, so far murder is concerned.

It cannot be ruled out that out of six accused, three accused, namely Kaluram, Pappuram and Siyaram accompanied other three accused to persuade Sriya to execute the sale-deed, but there is no material to infer that they had intention or shared the common object with other three accused Hariya, Ram Mohan and Prakash @ Omprakash, who played active role to put Sriya on fire. Thus, it is clear from the evidence that these three accused, namely Kaluram, Pappuram and Siyaram had played no role in the occurrence.

Consequently, as a matter of abundant caution, we shall extend the benefit of doubt to three appellants, Kaluram, Pappuram and Siyaram.

However, we find no merit in the case against accused, Heeralal, who had motive and caught hold of deceased, Rammohan, who had poured kerosene oil and Prakash @ Omprakash, who had set the deceased on fire. Consequently, we uphold their conviction and sentence.

As a result of above discussions, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1088/2008, is dismissed, qua Heeralal s/o Ramnath, while affirming his conviction and sentence. However, the same is accepted, qua Kaluram and Pappuram. Their conviction and sentence is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges.

We find no merit in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 58/2010 preferred by Prakash @ Omprakash and the same is, hereby, dismissed, being devoid of merit, while affirming conviction and sentence, qua him recorded by the trial Court.

We also accept D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 122/2009 preferred by Siyaram s/o Lalluram, set aside his conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court and acquit him of the charges.

We find no merit in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1150/2008 preferred by Rammohan s/o Ganga Sahay and the same is hereby, dismissed, while upholding the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court.

Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the each connected files.