Ram Murti and Others vs State of Haryana

Nawab Singh, J.—This appeal has been filed by Ram Murti, Tek Chand and Satpal, accused-appellants, against the judgment of conviction dated February 7th, 2002 and order of sentence dated February 11th, 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby, they were convicted and sentenced as under:

Offence Sentence Fine In default under Section 302/34 IPC Imprisonment Rs. 5000 - RI for 1 year for Life under Section 201 IPC Three years Rs. 2000/ - RI for 6 months The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

On June 16th, 1997, at about 8.00 P.M., Ram Murti and his two sons - Tek Chand and Satpal (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") took away Om Parkash (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") from his house situated in village Pilli Mandori to their field after loading cow dung manure in their camel-cart, in the presence of Supari (PW-5), wife of the deceased. Om Parkash did not return.

On June 19th, 1997, at 12.30 P.M., Dayal Chand (PW-4), father of the deceased came from village Jamal after attending a marriage ceremony. He was informed by Suprari (PW-5) about the missing of her husband. Dayal Chand (PW-4), his son Sita Ram (PW-7) and Bablu went in search of Om Parkash in the village Pillimandori, but no clue could be found. At about 6.00 P.M., when they were returning to their village, they saw the accused meddling the gram straw in their field. On seeing the complainant and Sita Ram, the accused fled away from the spot. A suspicion arose. Dayal Chand (PW-4) and his son went near the heap of gram straw and found foul smell emitting therefrom. They removed the gram straw and found the dead-body of Om Parkash in decomposed condition. Around the neck of the deceased, string of his pajama was found.

The motive behind the occurrence was that one year prior to occurrence, the deceased and Satpal, accused, had a quarrel but the same was amicably settled. However, both of them were not on speaking terms and to take the revenge, the deceased was murdered by the accused. Dayal Chand (PW-4) reached the Police Station and made statement to Karan Singh, Inspector, Station House Officer, Police Station, Bhattu Kalan (PW-12). First Information Report (Exhibit PF) was recorded. Karan Singh (PW-12) reached the spot. Scene of occurrence was photographed. Inquest proceedings (Exhibit PB) were conducted. Rough site plan (Exhibit PJ) was prepared. The dead-body of the deceased was sent for post mortem examination. A parcel containing clothes of the deceased were taken into possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit PK).

On June 21st, 1997 at 6.00 A.M., Ram Murti and Tek Chand, accused, went to the house of Ram Murti (PW-8) and made the extra judicial confession in the presence of Ranjit Singh to the effect that Satpal, accused and the deceased had a dispute; that the matter was reported to the police by Sita Ram, brother of Satpal, accused; that on the intervention of the respectables, the matter was compromised but the relations between them remained strained. Bhagirath, brother of Ram Murti, accused, had a dispute with Ram Murti over a piece of land; that Bhagirath had good relations with Om Parkash; that the marriage of daughter of Ram Murti, accused, was to be solemnized in a day or so; that they made a plan to murder Om Parkash so that Bhagirath would be named as an accused for causing the murder of Om Parkash; that they took away the deceased to their fields; that Om Parkash was forced to lay on the ground; that thereafter string of pajama of the deceased was removed and he was strangulated with the same; that thereafter, they kept concealed the dead-body of Om Parkash under the heap of gram straw.

Ram Murti (PW-8) produced Ram Murti and Tek Chand, accused, before Karan Singh (PW-12). He arrested them.

On June 24th, 1997, Satpal, accused-appellant, went to the house of Mani Ram (PW-9) in village Jamal and made extra-judicial confession on the same lines as made by Ram Murti and Tek Chand, accused, referred to in the preceding paragraph, in the presence of Raj Kumar. Mani Ram (PW-9) produced Satpal, accused, before Karan Singh (PW-12). He was also arrested.

7.1 After completion of investigation and other formalities, the accused was arraigned for trial.

Charge, in respect of commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") was framed against the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twelve witnesses.

In their examination recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused-respondents denied the allegations and pleaded innocence.

File has been perused and counsel for the parties heard.

As would be obvious, no eye witness account is available in the case and it depends on circumstantial evidence. Setting out the plethora of case law won''t serve much of a useful purpose for, it is well settled that where the prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence, there must be a complete chain which unerringly leads to the hypothesis of the guilt. Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra, can still be cited with advantage to clinch the issue.

Let it now be seen what are the circumstances and whether they form a complete chain?

Taking first things first, motive plays an important part in commission of several crimes. In face of direct evidence of crime, motive may take a back seat because very often it remains embedded in the mind of the culprit which no one can enter. In case of circumstantial evidence "motive" will be a vital consideration.

In the case on hand, the motive according to prosecution was that one year before the occurrence, a quarrel took place between Om Parkash (deceased) and accused Satpal but an amicable settlement followed. If that was so, motive vanished into thin air. Moreover, it has not been disclosed as to what kind of quarrel it was and what could be the intensity thereof. Nothing happened during one year''s period which means that there remained no motive particularly because whatever the dispute was, ended in an amicable settlement. Further on one hand, prosecution alleges that deceased and accused were not on speaking terms and on the other hand, accused came to the deceased to help them load manure in their buggi (animal driven cart). It is simply irreconcilable and self-contradictory to say the least. Thus, motive has not been proved.

Second circumstance is of last seen and Supari (PW-5) wife of the deceased is the witness. There was gap of time between the time her husband left his house and the time of detection of the dead body. What happened during that period is anybody''s guess. The statement of Supari (PW-5) fails to inspire confidence. There was animosity on account of one year old quarrel and deceased and accused were not on speaking terms if the prosecution was to be believed. The circumstances completely belie it. The deceased in normal course would not come from his house with the accused to help them load manure. His wife Supari (PW-5) would warn him not to go with the enemies but she was nonchalant. Her husband did not return for days and she never chose of informing the Police nor sought help from any effective quarter. Her conduct is manifestly far from being normal or cogent. Her statement, therefore, fails to stand the test of reason. For same reasons, the statement of Man Sarup (PW-6) the other witness of last seen is unbelievable.

As regards the testimony of Dayal Chand (PW-4) that he along with Sita Ram (PW-7) and Jagmal saw the accused meddling with straw heap in their field 2 feet away from the passage in the evening, it is again not normal or probable. Deceased left his house on June 16th, 1997 in the evening. His decomposed body was found on June 19th, 1997. How come that the accused would meddle with gram straw exactly when Dayal Chand etc. were returning and passing by the side of the field concerned. What could be the purpose of meddling with straw in which the dead body was lying? There is no satisfactory answer. It appeals that the investigation was conducted in a biased manner and every effort was made to connect the accused with the crime. The circumstantial evidence is contradictory, freakish, improbable and unworthy of credence.

As is being done quite often by the investigators, now-a-days, in this case also, evidence of "extra judicial confession" was created. Ram Murti (PW-8) stated that accused Ram Murti and Tek Chand came to his Baithak at 6 A.M. on June 24th, 1997 and confessed their guilt. Mani Ram (PW-9) and the prosecution would have this Court believed that Satpal accused met him on June 23rd, 1997 and confessed his guilt. The dead body had already been recovered and accused had been seen meddling with the heap of gram straw, there could be no occasion, reason or rhyme for the two sets of accused to go to the witness to confess their guilt. The alleged confessions were detailed ones as if the Police and the next of kin were groping in dark and the Police made short work by devising a yarn. One wonders if the number of accused was larger, would they have gone to some more persons to confess with gory details. It is rightly said that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. The witnesses Ram Murti (PW-8) and Mani Ram (PW-9) could have rendered hardly any help to the accused. The evidence of extra judicial confession is far from truth.

As a cumulative effect of the inherent abnormalities, contradictions and improbabilities pointed out above, the entire prosecution case appears to be a mere contrived story which has nothing to do with the truth. Obviously, the prosecution failed miserably to establish even one circumstance against the accused much less a complete chain of circumstances.

The trial Judge fell in serious error when he convicted and sentenced the accused. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set-aside. The appeal is accepted and all the accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges. The bail/surety bonds shall stand discharged.