Ramesh Chand Saini vs State Of Rajasthan

By this appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated 29th January, 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Bharatpur in Session Case No.54/2012. The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

An FIR No.505/2011 for offence under Section 302 IPC was registered by the Police Station, Mathura Gate, Bharatpur on a written report by complainant-Smt. Maya Devi (deceased's wife). After registration of the FIR, the investigation was caused by the police. They found a case against the accused-appellant and, accordingly, a charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 302 IPC and 30 of the Arms Act. The charges were framed by the trial court and explained to the accused. When he denied the charges, trial commenced.

The prosecution produced thirteen witnesses and twenty three documents to support its case. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not produce any witness in defence. The trial court, after marshalling the evidence, convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC while acquitting for offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act.

ARGUMENTS OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT:

Learned counsel for appellant has made reference of the statement of PW6-Gabbar, who did not support the prosecution case, thus was declared hostile. The others were interested witnesses. Their testimony should not have been relied by the trial court. The accused and the deceased are otherwise relatives, thus their exists no possibility of causing occurrence at the instance of appellant.

The prosecution failed to prove motive or a case of premeditation to cause occurrence. The deceased died out of firearm injuries. In view of the above, the accused-appellant deserves to be acquitted and for that, to set aside the order passed by the trial court.

ARGUMENTS OF THE SIDE OPPOSITE:

Learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for complainant have supported the order passed by the trial court. It is stated that prosecution not only produced eye-witnesses of the occurrence but proved recovery of the firearm used in the occurrence. The FSL report confirms use of weapon (gun) recovered at the instance of appellant but pellets recovered from the body of deceased-Ramprasad were fired from it.

The prosecution has proved motive and pre-mediation of the appellant to cause occurrence. It was on account of his apprehension about ill-health of his wife due to deceased. The deceased-Ramprasad said to have played black magic on his wife, thus, she was not keeping good health. For the aforesaid reason, the occurrence was caused by the appellant by opening fire on the deceased.

Learned Public Prosecutor has made reference of statements of eye-witnesses and other witnesses to prove the occurrence. It would be referred while recording finding on the issues raised by learned counsel for appellant.

FINDING OF THE COURT:

We have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The prosecution has produced eye-witnesses PW1-Mayadevi, PW2-Jitendra, PW5-Suresh, PW7-Dhanesh and PW10-Tundaram. All the witnesses have given one and same story for the occurrence. The allegation has been made against accusedappellant for opening fire on the deceased. It is for the reason that accused was having apprehension about black magic played by deceased-Ramprasad on his wife. The prosecution, thus could bring evidence to prove motive and even for pre-meditation of the appellant. He came with deadly weapon to cause occurrence.

The eye-witnesses to the occurrence have made specific allegation against the accused-appellant for opening fire on the deceased. Their testimony has been believed by the trial court as their statements could not be demolished in the crossexamination.

PW6-Gabbar is also an eye-witness but he has not supported the prosecution case, thus was declared hostile. Merely for that reason, statements of other witnesses cannot be ignored. It is moreso when they were present at the place of occurrence.

The prosecution has produced seizure memo of 12 Bore Gun, Exhibit-P6, recovered at the instance of the accused apart from two cartridges of 12 Bore gun, Exhibit-P7.

The prosecution has further produced an FSL report, ExhibitP23 to show that firearm at the instance of the accused was serviceable and there was a fire from it. It also proved that pellets recovered from the body of deceased-Ramprasad were out of 12 Bore gun. It is not only that prosecution could prove motive and pre-meditation of the appellant but produced eye-witnesses to the occurrence followed by recovery of weapon and the FSL report to prove use of firearm by the accused.

The prosecution even produced post-mortem report, ExhibitP13. It was proved by PW9-Dr. Mukesh Gupta. The description of the injuries has been given in the post-mortem report.

PW9-Dr. Mukesh Gupta has stated about firearm injuries to the deceased. This also proves the prosecution case for use of firearm.

PW2-Jitendra, PW7-Dhanesh and PW10-Tundaram are not only relatives of accused-appellant but are of the deceased also. In fact, both the parties are in relation with each other. The prosecution could produce brothers of accused i.e. PW7-Dhanesh and PW10-Tundaram, who have deposed statements against the accused. Their statements cannot be disbelieved because they are even close relatives of accused. Thus, argument of learned counsel for appellant that prosecution has produced interested witnesses, thus should not have been believed, cannot be accepted.

PW13-Mr. Dulichand Chahar, Investigating Officer, has proved the documents exhibited in the evidence. It is not only recovery of the firearm but empty cartridges at the instance of accusedappellant. He has even proved the letter sent to the FSL. The said witness was also cross-examined by the appellant but his statement could not be demolished.

An issue has been raised about the distance from which the fire was opened. The trial court did not accept the plea raised by the accused for it. In view of the above, we find that trial court came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt, accordingly, convicted and sentenced to the accused-appellant.

We do not find any ground to cause interference in the order passed by the trial court. The appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.