State of Rajasthan vs Daloo Ram

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.08.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as ''the trial court'') in Sessions Case No. 39/95, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of oral information, written as Ex. P/25, given by PW-20 Keshu Lal S/o Lalaji, the Police Station, Sayara, District Udaipur registered the FIR No. 41/1995 (Ex. P/22) on 22.05.1995 at about 12:30 PM against the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

In the above mentioned FIR, the PW-20 Keshu Lal has stated that he is studying in fourth standard and his age is about 13-14 years. He has further stated that in the preceding night when he and his mother viz. Mohani Bai W/o Lalaji were sleeping on the cot in the compound of their house after taking meals, at that time, Puna Garasiya came to their house at about 12:00 - 01:00 AM and asked for a new pitcher, then his mother said that no new pitcher is available, therefore, Puna took away old pitcher. It is stated by PW-20 Keshu Lal that when Puna was going out from their house, accused respondent Daloo Ram came there and asked Puna why he came in the night and asked him to go away, otherwise, he would beat him, thereafter the accused respondent Daloo Ram, armed with a stick, abused his mother and started assaulting her, when she raised cries, due to fear he ran away from his house and hid himself. After some time he went to the house of his brother Tulsa Ram and informed him that accused respondent Daloo Ram is assaulting their mother. He has further stated that Tulsa Ram told him that we should stay here for some time otherwise accused respondent Daloo Ram would also beat them. After some time, they reached their house and saw the accused respondent Daloo Ram assaulting their mother and upon seeing them he ran away from there. They saw that Puna Garasiya was also standing there with Daloo Ram. It is further stated by PW-20 Keshu Lal that they found their mother Mohani Bai shrieking, thereafter, he and his brother Tulsa Ram got their mother slept in the room and went to Tulsa Ram''s house and in the next morning, when he returned to his house, he found his mother dead. When he was going to inform his brother Tulsa Ram, he met him in the way, to whom PW-20 Keshu Lal told that their mother has died, then Tulsa Ram also came to his house and many other persons had assembled there and asked them to report the matter to the police.

The accused respondent was arrested by the police on 30.05.1995 and after concluding the investigation, the police had filed charge-sheet against the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The matter was committed to the trial court and during the trial, the prosecution got examined as many as 20 witnesses and also exhibited several documents. The statement of the accused respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., however, no person was examined as witness in defence.

The trial court after hearing the arguments of the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused respondent and after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the prosecution, has acquitted the accused respondent for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC vide impugned judgment dated 31.08.1996.

Assailing the impugned judgment dated 31.08.1996, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that PW-19 Tulsa Ram S/o Lalaji and PW-20 Keshu Lal S/o Lalaji were eye witnesses of the incident and have proved the prosecution story that on 22.05.1995 at about 12:30 - 01:00 AM the accused respondent had assaulted their mother deceased Mohani Bai with a stick and on account of that, Mohani Bai W/o Lalaji died. However, the trial court has grossly erred in not relying upon the testimonies of above two witnesses. It is contended that presence of both the witnesses viz. PW-19 Tulsa Ram and PW-20 Keshu Lal were not doubtful because in their statements both of them have clearly stated that accused respondent has assaulted their mother in front of them and from the testimonies of the said witnesses, the charge against the accused respondent of murdering Mohani Bai W/o Lalaji is fully proved. It is further contended that during the course of investigation, the police recovered the stick and Dhowan at the instance of accused respondent by which he had assaulted the deceased Mohani Bai and recovery of the said articles has also been proved by the prosecution. It is further contended that the stick and Dhowan, recovered at the instance of the prosecution were stained with human blood and the said piece of evidence has fully proved the guilt of accused respondent but the trial court without assigning the cogent reasons has acquitted the accused respondent.

On the strength of the above arguments, learned Public Prosecutor has prayed that the impugned judgment dated 31.08.1996 may be set aside and the accused respondent be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

Per contra, learned counsel for the accused respondent has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused respondent beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent vide impugned judgment. It is further argued on behalf of the accused respondent that the prosecution witnesses viz. PW-5 Mohanlal, PW-7 Tulchha, PW-8 Bakhtawar Lal, PW-9 Rupa, PW-10 Hajari Narayan, PW-11 Kalu, PW-12 Chunna, PW-13 Sarsi and PW-14 Puna have not supported the prosecution story and from the statement of the above witnesses it is clear that the deceased Mohani Bai received injuries in the evening of 21.05.1995 when she was going to Dewara (temple) situated in a village by falling on the stones. It is further submitted that as per the said witnesses, the mental condition of the deceased Mohani Bai was not good and she used to fall while going towards Dewara (temple) and on account of which she had received injuries on her body. It is further argued that from the statement of the above named prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the police had recovered the stick and Dhowan from the house of the deceased only and not at the instance of the accused respondent and, therefore, the said recovery was also doubtful. Learned counsel for the accused respondent has further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that after recovering the stick and Dhowan from the house of the deceased, the police wrapped the same in the quilt on which the deceased was lying and the said quilt was smeared with blood of the deceased and, therefore, in such circumstances in all possibilities the blood on the stick was found as the same was wrapped by the police in the quilt smeared with blood. Learned counsel for the accused respondent has further submitted that the testimonies of the alleged eye witnesses viz. PW-19 Tulsa Ram and PW-20 Keshu Lal are not believable, therefore, the trial court has rightly disbelieved their testimonies. Learned counsel for the accused respondent has argued that when the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondent.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and also carefully scrutinised the record.

To prove the charges against the accused respondent, the prosecution has produced PW-19 Tulsa Ram S/o Lalaji and PW-20 Keshu Lal S/o Lalaji, who are the sons of deceased Mohani Bai. PW-20 in his statement has stated that when he was sleeping with his mother in the night of 22.05.2015, the accused respondent came there and assaulted his mother. It is further stated that due to fear, he ran away from the house to inform his brother Tulsa Ram and returned back along with Tulsa Ram and till then Daloo Ram was assaulting his mother. In cross-examination, he has submitted that accused Daloo Ram has inflicted as many as 400-500 blows by the stick and about 200-300 blows by Dhowan on the body of his mother. He further stated that several other persons were also standing there when accused respondent Daloo Ram was assaulting his mother. He further stated that at the time of incident several villagers had assembled there and everybody has witnessed the assault on his mother.

PW-19 Tulsa Ram has stated in his court statement that when he along with his brother Keshu Lal reached their house, Daloo Ram was assaulting his mother, however, he has not stated that he tried to save his mother.

The trial court has disbelieved the testimonies of above two witnesses mainly on the ground that though both the witnesses have said that Daloo Ram was brutally assaulting their mother in their presence but both of them did not try to save their mother from Daloo Ram. The trial court has observed that such a conduct of the witnesses of not saving their mother from assault is unbelievable. The trial court has also taken into consideration the delay in filing the FIR and also the fact that none of the prosecution witnesses has supported the version of the alleged eye witnesses PW-19 and PW-20. The trial court has also found several discrepancies and contradiction in the statements of the alleged eye witnesses. It is also observed that the prosecution witnesses have stated that the mental condition of the deceased was not good and in the preceding evening of the date of incident, she visited Dewara (temple) of the village and during that time, she was falling on the ground where several stones were lying and on account of that she had received injuries on her body. The trial court has also disbelieved the recovery of the Dhowan at the instance of accused respondent because the witnesses of the recovery have not supported the prosecution. The trial court has also observed that the prosecution witnesses have stated that the Dhowan was wrapped by the police in the quilt which was smeared with the blood of the deceased and in that situation there is all possibility that the said Dhowan also came in contact with the blood of the deceased.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and carefully scrutinised the prosecution evidence, we are of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused respondent because the prosecution has failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence to connect the accused respondent with the commission of crime. The testimonies of the alleged eye witnesses PW-19 and PW-20 are suffering from discrepancies and contradictions. Their conduct too was so unnatural that no reliance can be placed on the testimonies of said witnesses. Hence, the trial court has rightly disbelieved the same. The recovery of the Dhowan at the instance of the accused respondent too was not sufficiently proved by the prosecution.

In view of the above discussions, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment dated 31.08.1996 passed by the trial court.

Hence, this criminal appeal is hereby dismissed.