Ranu Alias Rajnish Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 09.12.2015, passed by the Sessions Judge, Baran, in Sessions Case No. 86/2011. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in case of default of payment of fine, to serve one month simple imprisonment.

The complainant PW-7 Satya Narain gave a written report to the police on 13.04.2011. It was contended that his younger brother- Pawan Kumar came to residence after closing his shop at 7:00 p.m. on 12.04.2011. He was sitting in-front of the house between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. The complainant along with his father went to a temple. They returned at around 12:00 in the night. Pawan Kumar was not found at the residence thus he was searched in the nearby areas. He was given call on two- three occasion but did not respond to phone calls. In the morning, it was found switched off. At around 10:00 a.m. on 13.04.2011, the dead body of Pawan Kumar was found near Natraj Garden. The blood was oozing out due to the head injury and he sustained even injuries on the leg. Somebody had killed him during the night.

The Police registered an FIR bearing No. 248/2011 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant was arrested and after investigation, charge-sheet against him was filed for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The trial Court framed charges and explained it to the accused. He denied the charges thus trial commenced. The prosecution produced twenty witnesses apart from thirty four documents. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He produced four documents in defence. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced, as mentioned earlier.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. The trial Court has convicted the appellant based on evidence of last seen and recovery of a stone. It is ignoring that in the written report for registration of FIR, it was not stated that the deceased was seen in the company of anyone between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. while sitting in-front of the house or even subsequent to it. The story of last seen was developed after registration of FIR. The trial Court yet believed the statements of witnesses for last seen.

So far as recovery of blood stained stone and a pair of "chappal" are concerned, it has also been questioned by learned counsel for the appellant. The FIR was registered on 13.04.2011.

Police inspected the place of occurrence on the same day. They did not recover either stone or pair of "chappal", rather, it was recovered after lapse of almost 8 to 9 days. The recovery of blood stained stone was made on 22.04.2011, whereas, the pair of "chappal" on 23.04.2011. The blood stained stone was sent for FSL report while bunch of hair recovered by the police were not sent for that. The recovery of stone and pair of "chappal" becomes doubtful because of delay and otherwise prosecution could not bring evidence to connect the accused with crime by recovery of stone as well as "chappal". The stone and "chappal" remain exposed for many days. This fact has been ignored by the trial Court.

The prosecution even failed to show any motive to cause occurrence by the appellant. The prosecution brought evidence to show that appellant caused occurrence due to money transaction with the deceased. The aforesaid was not believed even by the trial Court. A reference of the statement of PW-20, Investigating Officer Yashwant Singh, has been given. It is to show that even according to him, there was no money transaction between accused and the deceased. The reference of statement of deceased's wife PW-9- Smt. Maya has also been given. She has not shown money transaction between the two. She was declared hostile thus prosecution case has not been supported by her. In view of the above, even motive could not be proved by the prosecution.

It is lastly stated that appellant was arrested without any evidence against him and, therefore, even the complainant party themselves demanded for arrest of real culprit/ accused. For the aforesaid, reference of the statement of PW-3- Mahendra Suman, PW-4- Ram Chandra, PW-7- SatyaNarain, PW-8-Sunita Suman and PW-20- Investigating Officer, Yashwant Singh has been given. They have admitted that even after arrest of accused- appellant, there was constant demand to arrest the real culprit.

In view of the facts given above, the order of the trial Court deserves to be set aside and, accordingly, appellant be acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and submits that the prosecution could prove its case beyond doubt. The evidence led by them was sufficient to show participation of the accused- appellant in the crime. The trial Court has thus rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

The prosecution brought evidence of last seen of the accused in the company of deceased to connect him with the crime. The recovery of blood stained stone and pair of "chappal" was made at his instance. The prosecution produced evidence even to prove motive of the occurrence. The prayer is accordingly to dismiss the appeal while maintaining the order of the trial Court.

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

Learned counsel for the appellant has questioned the order passed by the trial Court. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. According to the appellant, prosecution failed to bring chain of circumstances to connect the appellant with the crime. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant has been opposed by learned Public Prosecutor

To appreciate the argument, we have gone through the record and scanned the matter carefully.

The facts on record show that an FIR was registered on a written report of complainant PW-7- Satya Narain vide Ex.P-6. The perusal of written report based on which FIR (EX.P-16) was registered shows that deceased- Pawan Kumar came at the residence at around 7:00 p.m. after closing the shop. He was seen in-front of the house between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. on 12.04.2011. The complainant and his father, PW-4 Ram Chandra, left the residence and returned back at around 12:00 in the night after visiting a temple. The deceased was not found at residence thus he was given a call on his mobile. It was not received by him. The mobile phone was later on found switched off. His dead body was found near Railway Track close to Natraj Garden on 13.04.2011.

In the written report as well as in the FIR, complainant did not state that deceased- Pawan Kumar was sitting in-front of the house in the company of accused when they left the deceased to visit a temple. The evidence of last seen was developed by the prosecution subsequent to registration of FIR. If deceased and accused were together and were seen by the complainant PW-7- Satya Narain then there was no reason not to mention it in the written report and in the FIR. The statement of last seen is nothing but with an improvement. The aforesaid is the first aspect considered by us.

The other issue, on which the conviction is based, is of recovery of blood stained stone and pair of "chappal". As per the statement of PW-20- Investigating Officer Yashwant Singh, they visited the place of occurrence on the same day. The stones were found lying nearby but they did not recover either blood stained stone or a pair of "chappal" despite proper visit to place of occurrence. It is coming out from the statement of PW-20-Investigating Officer Yashwant Singh himself. The recovery of stone at the instance of appellant was made from an open place on 22.04.2011 i.e. after nine days of FIR. The pair of "chappal" was recovered on 23.04.2011 i.e. also ten days of the FIR. The recovery is from an open place. The blood stained stone and "chappal" remain exposed for a period of 9-10 days. In view of the above, the recovery of blood stained stone and pair of chappal to connect the accused with the crime has also been questioned and we find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant.

As per the statement of PW-20- Investigating Officer Yashwant Singh, the site was inspected properly on the day of occurrence. The blood stained stone and pair of "chappal" were not recovered despite proper inspection of the place of occurrence thus recovery becomes doubtful. The recovery of "chappal" has been supported by PW-12- Ram Prasad and PW-13- Suresh Kumar who are none-else but Police Constables. The recovery of stone and pair of "chappal" is not in the presence of independent witnesses.

In view of the facts given above, when recovery of stone and pair of "chappal" is doubtful, the second circumstance to connect the accused with the crime cannot be accepted. It is more so when no motive to cause occurrence has been proved. The prosecution could not bring motive out of money transaction between the deceased and the accused. It has not been supported by PW-9- Smt. Maya. She is none-else but wife of the deceased. It has not even been supported even by PW-20-, Investigating Officer Yashwant Singh. It has been stated that there was no money transaction between the two. The trial Court has also not believed motive out of money transaction.

In view of the above, the prosecution failed to bring motive to connect the appellant with the crime and any other evidence so as to connect by bringing chain of circumstances, being a case of circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, we find reason to cause interference in the order passed by the trial Court and, accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the accusedappellant- Ranu alias Rajnish Sharma is set aside. He is acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC. He may be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., appellant/s Ranu @ Rajnish Sharma is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar(Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.

With the aforesaid, criminal appeal is allowed.

In view of disposal of the criminal appeal, application for suspension of sentence also stands disposed of.