Ram Ratan vs Rajkumari

A.K. Joshi, J

Present respondents No.1 to 3 namely Rajkumari, Gajri Bai and Satendra Singh were tried for the offences punishable under Section 302/120-B, 323,

201 of the IPC and respondent No.3 Satendra Singh was additionally charged under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. All the above mentioned three respondents were acquitted from the charged offences by the Special Judge vide

judgment dated 02.08.2017. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal in relation to present respondents No.1 to 3 from the above mentioned

offences, an application under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the present applicant for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment

of acquittal.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Narayani Bai (PW-3) on 06.03.2013 lodged merg report (Ex.P-4) to the effect that on the same day

in evening when she was working in her agricultural land, then she saw the dead body of an unknown man lying in her agricultural land, which was in

decomposed state and foul smell was coming out and corpus was in putrefied state. Merg enquiry was conducted by Sub-Inspector Anand Bajpayee

(PW-11). On 07.03.2013 Bhagwati Bai (PW-7) and her son-in-law (Damad) Rajkumar Jatav (PW-4) identified the decomposed dead body as of

Bhagwati Bai's son Mukesh Jatav S/o Puran Jatav aged about 25 years on the basis of clothes found on the dead body and shoes, sweater and shirt.

During merg enquiry, red couloured sweater, white coloured shirt and two empty pouches of sulphas which were found in the back pocket of the pant

of deceased and 8-10 plums (fruits) which were kept in right packet of deceased's pant, were seized by Anand Bajpayee vide seizure memo (Ex.P-

13). Identification memo (Ex.P-6) was prepared and in the presence of panch witnesses, inquest memo (Ex.P-7) was prepared. Recovered dead

body was sent to the District Hospital Guna, where on 07.03.2013, Dr. Manish Jain (PW-1) and Dr. Anil Shukla jointly conducted post-mortem of

recovered dead body and recorded post-mortem report (Ex.P-2). During merg enquiry, statements of some witnesses were recovered and it was

learnt that deceased Mukesh was married to respondent No.1 Rajkumari and respondent No.2 Gajri Bai is mother of Rajkumari and Satendra Singh

was having illicit relationship with respondent No.1 Rajkumari. On 11.03.2013, present applicant Ramratan filed a written application (Ex.P-14)

regarding murder of his brother Mukesh by above mentioned three respondents. Deceased's clothes and viscera were sent to Regional Forensic

Science Laboratory Gwalior. After completing the formalities of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court.

Tried respondents abjured their guilt. Before the trial Court twelve prosecution witnesses were examined. It was the defence of accused persons

that they have been falsely implicated. Pawan Kumar Kori (DW-1), Assistant Grade-III posted at District Hospital Guna, was examined as defence

witness for proving OPD tickets and admitted indoor patient documents of Guna hospital in relation to respondent Rajkumari and Gajri Bai. The

Special Court acquitted each tried accused person from the framed charges against him.

Appearing counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that Sanjay Kumar (PW-5), Rajkumar (PW4) have deposed that they saw quarrel

occurring between Mukesh and his wife Rajkumari on 25.02.2013 at the house of Rajkumari's mother Gajri Bai for bringing Rajkumari back to her

matrimonial house, wherein Mukesh was beaten by Rajkumari and her mother Gajri Bai and thereafter Mukesh fled away from that house and

Ramratan (PW-9) deposed that respondent Satendra Singh has taken his brother Mukesh from his village to the house of Gajri Bai for getting

compromise between Mukesh and his wife. It is also argued that according to FSL report (Ex.P-18), no chemical poison was found in the viscera of

the deceased. Therefore, it is argued that the Special Court erred in acquitting the tried accused persons.

Therefore, it is prayed that grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal be given.

It is clear that the prosecution's case was totally based on circumstantial evidence. Ramratan (PW-9) deposed that his brother Mukesh was

married to respondent Rajkumari about two years ago and his brother Mukesh intimated him that respondent Satendra Singh came to bring him and

Satendra Singh is assuring that matter would be settled and Rajkumari shall be sent to her husband's house, therefore, Mukesh had gone with Satendra

Singh to village Gopalpura and thereafter on 24.03.2012 he was telephonically intimated that Rajkumar and Mohan have identified the dead body, then

he went to the hospital, where dead body was shown by police which was identified by him as the dead body of his brother Mukesh. Ramratan

testified that prior to his brother's death, his wife Rajkumari was telling that if respondent Satendra Singh would be of her caste, then she would have

married to Satendra Singh. Ramratan deposed that later on Rajkumar and Dulichand intimated him that all three respondents have jointly killed his

brother in the night at 10-12 pm and this fact was mentioned by him in his police statement. This important fact is missing in his police statement

(Ex.D-2). Ramratan deposed that on 24.03.2012 and thereafter he identified the dead body, but it is clear that the dead body was identified on

07.03.2012.

According to prosecution story, in the evening of 25.02.2013, Mukesh was beaten by all the three accused persons and on 06.03.2013 conspiracy to

murder was prepared. It is not clear from the evidence of Ramratan (PW-9) that after going with respondent Satendra Singh to Gopalpura whether

his brother Mukesh has returned back to his village Tighra Chanch or not. It is clear from the medical evidence of Dr. Manish Jain (PW-1) and his

post-mortem report (Ex.P2) that on 07.03.2013 in the District Hospital Guna at the time of starting post-mortem, he found that the dead body of

Mukesh has been totally decomposed and changed into bones only and head was decapitated from the trunk and there were no sign of injuries over

neck and skin and soft tissue of dead body were totally absent and flesh of the dead body was eaten by maggots and only single soft tissue (piece of

flesh) was found in abdominal cavity which was sealed and sent for chemical examination and it was found that the dead body got skeletonized and

even the viscera was not able to be identified and in his and another doctor's opinion, the reason of death could be mentioned only after receiving the

chemical report of viscera and soft tissue because dead body was modified into frame of bones and in their opinion deceased had died within a period

of one week to one month ago from starting of their post-mortem. In cross-examination, Dr. Jain clearly deposed that even viscera was not capable of

preserving, hence, cause of death could not be ascertained as the dead body was totally putrefied, its identification was also not possible.

There is no positive evidence on record that the death of deceased Mukesh was homicidal, therefore, in absence of positive medical evidence, the

trial Court did not err in acquitting the relating respondent from the charge of murder, because according to prosecution's story, Mukesh was beaten

by respondents on 25.02.2013. No missing report of Mukesh was lodged by his real brother Ramratan (PW-2), whereas it is clear from the medical

evidence that the recovered dead body was indicating that the death of relating deceased occurred about one to four weeks ago.

Evidence of Narayani Bai (PW-3) and Dulichand (PW-8) are relating to discovery of dead body of an unknown man in the agricultural land of

Narayani Bai. Bhagwati Bai (PW-7), mother of deceased, deposed that her son Mukesh died within one year after his marriage with Rajkumari and

when respondent Satendra Singh came to his house, she was cooking food inside the house, then her son intimated her that Satendra Raghuvanshi

came and till she came out from her house, till then her son had gone to his sasural village Gopalpura with Satendra and later on Rajkumar intimated

her that Rajkumari, her mother and Satendra have killed Mukesh. Bhagwati Bai also deposed that her son had intimated her that his wife Rajkumari

was having illicit relationship with Satendra Raghuvanshi. 9. Rajkumar (PW-4) and Sanjay Kumar (PW-5) both residents of village Gopalpura deposed

that in the evening at about 6:00 pm on 25.02.2013, both of them saw a quarrel occurring between Mukesh and his wife Rajkumari and Gajri bai in

front of house of Gajri Bai, but Sanjay Kumar deposed that Mukesh and Rajkumari both were quarreling with stones and Gajri Bai was also included

in the quarrel and at that time other people of the same Mohalla were also witnessing the incident, but both of them deposed that after this incident,

respondent Rajkumari went to police station for lodging the FIR. Rajkumar (PW-4)Â and Sanjay Kumar (PW-5) both were declared hostile by the

prosecution as they did not depose before the Special Court in total accordance with their police statements. Rajkumar (PW-4) is a close relative of

deceased Mukesh, but after declaring him hostile, he admitted the suggestion given by the Public Prosecutor that he stated to police that on 25.02.2013

in the night at about 11:00 pm, when he was returning from his field, then he saw that respondents Rajkumari, Gajri Bai and Satendra Singh

Raghuvanshi (resident of village Mavan) were giving beating to Mukesh and they dragged Mukesh into the house of Gajri Bai and some time later on,

all these three respondents were carrying a heavy bag towards ditch (Nala).

Rajkumar (PW-4) deposed that in the evening at 6:00 pm when crying and quarrel were occurring, then he fled away and later on, he was

intimated that after the quarrel, Mukesh had fled away from the house of Gajri Bai. Sanjay Kumar (PW-5) also deposed that at the time of 6:00 pm,

Mukesh has left the house of Gajri Bai, but both of them have deposed that on that day Rajkumar and her mother Gajri Bai were having injuries over

their heads and Rajkumari had gone to police station for lodging the report. It is surprising that both these witnesses Rajkumar (PW-4) and Sanjay

Kumar (PW-5) are panch witnesses of inquest memo (Ex.P-7) prepared by SHO, Anand Bajpayee (PW-11) on 07.03.2013, after recovery of dead

body, but they clearly deposed that on 07.03.2013 they did not intimate the police officials regarding the incident witnessed by them in the evening of

25.02.2013. Anand Bajpayee (PW-11), who conducted merg enquiry clearly deposed in cross-examination that he recorded merg statements (Ex.D-4)

of Sanjay Kumar (PW-5) on 08.03.2013 and he recorded merg statement (Ex.D-3) of Rajkumar (PW-4) on 11.03.2013. These facts clearly indicate

that the evidence given by both of these witnesses regarding witnessing the incident on 25.02.2013 was not inspiring confidence, as both of them were

panch witnesses of inquest memo (Ex.P-7). If both of them would have witnessed any incident in the evening or night of 25.02.2013, they definitely

would have disclosed relating facts at the time of preparation of inquest memo.

Anand Bajpayee (PW-11) clearly admitted in cross-examination (para 15) that Sanjay Kumar (PW-5) has not disclosed the name of Satendra

Raghuvanshi at the time of recording of Ex.D-4 by him. Similarly , Anand Bajpayee (PW-11) admitted in para 18 that Rajkumar (PW-4) has not

disclosed these facts, at the time of recording of his merg statement (Ex.D-3), that respondent Satendra Singh Raghuvanshi was visited Rajkumari's

house situated at village Gopalpura in every night at 11:00 pm and in next morning Satendra Singh was leaving Rajkumari's house and this relation was

the main reason of quarrel between Mukesh and Rajkumari. He clearly admitted that Rajkumar has not disclosed the fact on 25.02.2013 that Mukesh

came to the house of Gajri Bai for bringing his wife Rajkumari, but Rajkumari did not go with him. He further admitted that Rajkumar has not

disclosed the fact that respondent Satendra Singh chased deceased Mukesh and Rajkumar has also not disclosed the fact regarding illicit relations

between Satendra and Rajkumari in his merg statement (Ex.D-3). All these facts clearly indicate that Rajkumar (PW-4) being a close relative of

deceased later on, gave improved and exaggerated version. Merg statements being firstly recorded are more important, then police statements, which

were recorded later on by DSP, S.R. Chopra (PW-12) during investigation.

Pawan Kumar Kori (DW-1), who was working as Assistant Grade-III employee at District Hospital Guna, at the time of recording of his evidence

before the trial Court has brought MLC and admission register of indoor patients of relating hospital and proved signature of Dr. Vinod Chourasiya on

OPD ticket (Ex.D6) and indoor patient paper (Ex.D-7) of relating respondent Rajkumari and OPD ticket (Ex.D-8) and indoor patient paper (Ex.D-9)

relating to respondent Gajri Bai and he also proved Gajri Bai's MLC report (Ex.D-10) and respondent Rajkumari's MLC report (Ex.D.-11) and it is

clear from his total evidence that respondent Rajkumari was medically examined at 7:45 pm on 25.02.2013 and thereafter at 7:50 pm on same day

Rajkumari was admitted in District Hospital Guna and similarly her mother Gajri Bai was examined at 7:55 pm on same day and Gajri Bai admitted in

the hospital at the same time and Gajri Bai and Rajkumari both were discharged from the district hospital on 27.02.2013. The evidence given by above

mentioned district hospital's employee is corroborated by above mentioned documentary evidence and it is clear that on 25.02.2013 in the night at

about 11:00 pm, Gajri Bai and Rajkumari were admitted in District Hospital Guna, hence, the evidence given by Rajkumar (PW-4) that in the same

night he saw both of these ladies with Satendra Singh firstly beating Mukesh and thereafter carrying a bag towards ditch (Nala) is a work of high

imagination introduced during the merg enquiry. Therefore, only this fact is proved that on 25.02.2013 at about 6:00 pm, a quarrel occurred between

Mukesh, Rajkumari and Gajri Bai and both of these ladies received injuries and Rajkumari reported the matter to police and both these witnesses

deposed that Mukesh fled away from the house of Gajri Bai and thereafter both these respondents ladies were admitted in the hospital, therefore, the

evidence of Rajkumar (PW-4) regarding the incident seen by him at 11:00 pm is totally unbelievable.

It is also argued that according to FSL report, in viscera no chemical poison was found. Therefore, possibility of committing suicide by Mukesh is

ruled out, though two empty pouches of sulphas were recovered by Anand Bajpayee (PW-11). But, it is clear that from the medical evidence of Dr.

Manish jain that only single soft tissue was found and other viscera was also not available. Therefore, absence of poison in sent viscera for chemical

analysis, could not rule out the possibility of suicide. Much emphasis has been given on the finding that human blood over sweater, shirt and shocks of

the deceased was found as indicated by FSL report (Ex.P-19), but only presence of human blood on some clothes of deceased, could not connect the

tried accused persons with the alleged incident.

We are of the considered opinion that the learned Special Judge has properly and legally appreciated and analyzed the entire evidence available on

record in the light of various citations referred in its judgment. In view of the aforesaid total evidence available on record, we do not consider it to be a

fit case for grant of leave against the judgment of acquittal. In our considered opinion, the impugned judgment of acquittal acquitting three respondents

namely Rajkumari, Gajri Bai and Satendra Singh from relating charges is well founded, therefore, the view taken by the Special Judge appears to be

possible and plausible. That being so, no ground for grant of leave to appeal is made out.

Resultantly, we refuse to grant of leave as contemplated under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. and, accordingly, dismiss above mentioned

application in limine at the stage of admission itself.

With a copy of this order, the record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.