Sultan Ram S/o Sh. Arjun Ram vs State of Rajasthan

In this cr. jail appeal filed by the accused appellant Sultan

Ram from Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar, accused appellant is

challenging the judgment dated 17.3.2011 passed in Sessions

Case No.32/2006 whereby the learned Addl. District & Sessions

Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar

convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302

IPC and passed sentence for life imprisonment with fine of

Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo

three months RI.

As per brief facts of the case, the FIR no.253/2006 dated

25.4.2006 (Ex.P/20) was registered against the accused appellant

under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri

Ganganagar on the basis of verbal information given by the

accused appellant himself in which following confessional

statement was given by the accused appellant with regard to the

committing murder of his own wife. The Ex.P/20 reads as under:-

"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

After registration of the FIR, the accused appellant was

arrested by the police vide arrest memo at 1.15 pm at village

Rangmahal in front of two witnesses Rameshwar and Hemraj. The

SHO Police Station, Suratgarh immediately went on spot and

prepared site plant (Ex.P/3) and details of site were recorded in

Ex.P/3A. The body of the deceased Seema was taken to the

hospital. From the place of occurrence, one piece of blood stained

pillow was taken in possession vide Ex.P/4. The blood stained soil

along with simple soil was also taken in possession and sealed on

spot on 25.4.2006. The blood stained cloths (Gaghara and Kurta)

of the deceased Seema Devi were taken in possession vide Ex.P/6

and sealed on spot.

After arrest, an information was given by the accused

appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 25.04.2006

itself with regard to recovery of one weapon Kassi which is said to

be used by him to cause injuries upon his wife. The Kassi was

recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P/7 on the same day at 3.45

pm. The condition of the body at the place of occurrence was

recorded vide Ex.P/8 and Panchanama of the dead body (Ex.P/9)

was also prepared on spot. After post mortem, the body of the

deceased was handed over to the father-in-law Arjun Ram of the

deceased and to family members of the deceased. The post

mortem report (Ex.P/13) was obtained by the SHO for further

investigation. The photographs of the dead body and place of

occurrence were also taken for the purpose of investigation.

All the articles seized on spot and recovered at the instance

of the accused appellant were sent to the FSL for chemical

examination. In turn, FSL report (Ex.P/28) dated 27.7.2006 was

received and after recording statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

of all the witnesses, on completion the investigation charge-sheet

was filed against the accused appellant Sultan Ram, in the court

of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sri

Ganganagar from where after taking cognizance under Section

302 IPC the case was committed to the court of learned Addl.

District Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar Camp Suratgarh vide order

dated 5.7.2006. Later on, the case was transferred to the court

of Special Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities and

Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar, for trial.

On the basis of entire evidence on record, the learned trial

court after providing an opportunity of hearing framed charge

under Section 302 IPC against the accused appellant, but the

accused appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial. In the

trial, statements of 13 prosecution witnesses were recorded in

support of prosecution and 28 documents were exhibited during

trial.

After recording entire evidence of prosecution, the learned

trial court recorded statement of the accused appellant under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which following explanation is given by the

accused appellant, which reads as under:

"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

After recording aforesaid statement under Section 313

Cr.P.C., an application was filed by the prosecution to take FSL

report on record which is received at belated stage. The learned

trial court vide its order dated 18.2.2011 took FSL report on

record and marked the same as Ex.P/28. The accused appellant

was further granted an opportunity to give his explanation with

regard to FSL report in which it is stated by the accused appellant

that whole proceedings initiated by the police is false and

therefore, the said evidence of FSL report cannot be taken into

consideration to prove the guilt for the alleged offence. No

evidence was produced by the appellant in defence.

The learned trial court finally heard the arguments and

convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302

IPC vide judgment dated 17.3.2011 and passed sentence

aforesaid.

The instant jail appeal has been filed by the accused

appellant to challenge the judgment impugned on various

grounds.

Upon written request made by the accused appellant, Mr.

TRS Sodha, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to conduct

this appeal on behalf of the accused appellant.

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that whole

prosecution case, based upon confessional statement of the

accused appellant, is false because the FIR bears the signatures

of the accused appellant whereas the accused appellant is not

literate person, therefore, confessional statement recorded by the

SHO is totally false, as such the finding of conviction recorded on

the basis of confessional statement is far from the truth. He

further submit that it is settled principle of law that no conviction

can be based only upon confessional statement. The other

circumstantial evidence is must to connect the accused with the

crime. In this case FIR was registered at Police Station, Suratgarh

upon the confessional statement of the accused appellant, the

Court is situated only 100 to 150 meters away from police station

but the statement of the accused appellant were not recorded

under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also argued that if confessional

statement was made at 6.00 am on 25.4.2006 then why accused

appellant was arrested at 1.15 pm and how before arrest the

proceedings upon site was completed and the weapon Kassi was

recovered on the same day as per information of the accused

appellant at 3.45 pm vide recovery memo (Ex.P/7).

Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention that

entire investigation was conducted in the presence of two

interested witnesses Rameshwar and Hemraj but both the

witnesses turned hostile. According to the investigating officer, the

weapon Kassi recovered from the house of the father of accused,

was sealed on spot and marked as "E" for the purpose of further

investigation but in the FSL report though blood was found upon

all the articles except Ghaghara, Kurta and Orna but upon perusal

of the photographs it will reveal that the cloths of the deceased

were sustained with heavy blood and seized on spot immediately,

therefore, it is a case in which whole prosecution story is doubtful.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that except

confessional statement of the accused appellant, there is no

evidence on record because the witness PW--1 Mani Ram,

neighbor of the accused appellant, PW--2 Jagram, PW--3

Rameshwar and PW--4 Hem Raj turned hostile and did not

support the prosecution case. Out of above four witnesses, the

witness PW--3 Rameshwar and PW--4 Heam Ram are the

witnesses of recovery, but both these witnesses turned hostile,

therefore, the recovery of articles including Kassi is doubtful. In

the cross-examination the witness PW--4 Hem Raj specifically said

from the site police took in possession blood stained piece of

pillow, soil and simple soil and cloths of the deceased as well Kassi

but not sealed in front of him. Meaning thereby, the weapon Kassi

which is said to be recovered from the house of the father of the

accused appellant became doubtful because this witness

categorically stated in his cross-examination that the weapon

Kassi was taken in possession from the site by the police.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that PW-3

Rameshwar is also witness of recovery of all the articles. The said

witness categorically stated in cross-examination that neither

cloths of the deceased nor Kassi was recovered by the police in

his presence, therefore, when recovery of weapon Kassi itself is

doubtful then there is no question to hold accused appellant guilty

for offence under Section 302 IPC on the basis of his confessional

statement.

According to the learned counsel for the appellant no

confessional statement was given by the accused appellant, but

the FIR was registered on the basis of confessional statement.

Further it is submitted that if the incident of causing injuries was

occurred on spot then obviously blood was to be found upon the

cloths of the accused appellant, but in the investigation cloths of

the accused appellant were not taken in possession, inspite of the

fact that soon after the occurrence in the morning at 6.00 am,

accused appellant went to the Police Station Suratgarh but there

is no assertion in the FIR that blood was found upon the cloths of

the deceased. Therefore, it is a case in which finding of conviction

of the accused appellant on the basis of confessional statement is

not sustainable in law because whole prosecution story is doubtful.

The appellant who is illiterate person has been falsely implicated

in this case without any evidence against him, therefore, the

judgment impugned may kindly be quashed.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no

strength in the argument of the counsel for the appellant because

FIR itself was registered upon oral statement made by him before

the SHO Police Station Suratgarh upon that accused appellant put

his signature and now he is refuting the evidence of prosecution

case which is based upon reliable evidence. Learned Public

Prosecutor submits that although four witnesses PW--1 Mani Ram,

PW--2 Jag Ram, neighbor of the accused appellant, so also PW--3

Rameshwar and PW--4 Hem Raj, witnesses recovery, turned

hostile but the other evidence of recovery of Kassi and FSL

report which is duly proved by the investigating officer, loudly

speaks that finding of the learned trial court holding the accused

appellant guilty for committing offence under Section 302 IPC is

perfectly justified.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that on the

one hand the accused appellant himself gave information and

made confessional statement that he has committed an offence of

murder of his own wife and on the other hand he has refuted his

confessional statement made before the police, therefore, the

finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial court based

upon sound appreciation of evidence does not require any

interference.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it emerges

from the record that the FIR (EX.P/20) was registered at Police

Station Suratgarh on 25.04.2006 upon the confessional statement

of the accused appellant, the entire prosecution case is based

upon the testimony of thirteen witnesses.

It is true that two witnesses PW-1 Mani Ram and PW-2

Jagram, neighbour PW.3 Rameshwar, and PW.4 Hemraj close

relatives of the accused appellant Sultan Ram, turned hostile and

did not support the prosecution case but incident was reported by

the accused appellant himself in which he has categorically

accepted that due to doubt upon character of my wife, Seema, I

inflicted injuries upon her body by a sharp edged weapon Kassi

and due to those injuries, she died.

After registration of FIR at 6:00 am on 25.04.2006, the

investigation was conducted by the SHO PW-12 Narendra Kumar

Sharma. The said witness has categorically stated on oath that

FIR was registered as per oral information given by the accused

appellant Sultan Ram himself on 25.04.2006 at 6:00 am. After

registration of FIR, the investigation was commenced in presence

of two witnesses and photography of the place of occurrence and

dead body was made, the dead body of Seema, wife of the

accused appellant was taken to the hospital for post mortem. In

the hospital, post mortem was conducted by witness PW-5 Dr.

Vinod Sharma at 2:30 pm on 25.04.2006. The dead body was

identified by the father-in-law of the accused appellant, Arjun Ram

and after examination of the body, the post mortem report

(Ex.P/13) was prepared by him. In the post mortem report, PW-5

Dr. Vinod Sharma gave opinion that injury Nos. 1,2 & 3 were

sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

PW-3 Rameshwar and PW-4 Hemraj are the witnesses before

whom the investigation was conducted and all the exhibits were

prepared. Although both the witnesses turned hostile but

categorically stated before the Court that investigation was

conducted by the SHO PW.2- Narendra Kumar Sharma.

PW-6 Puran Singh was working as Head Constable and he

was in-charge of Malkhana of Police Station Suratgarh where the

investigating officer Narendra Kumar Sharma, CI deposited five

sealed packets having Mark "A", "B", "C", "D" & "E" and those

articles were sent by him through Deva Ram, Constable to the FSL

where those articles were examined by the FSL.

PW-7 Jeewan Ram is the brother-in-law of the deceased

Seema. The said witness gave following statement before the

Court which reads as under:-

"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"

It is true that in cross examination, there is some

contradiction in his statement from the statement recorded under

Section 161 CrPC but we cannot lose sight of the fact that the

accused appellant himself made confession before the SHO Police

Station Suratgarh that he has murdered his own wife.

PW-8 Kalu Ram, father of the deceased Seema, has

categorically stated before the Court that my daughter''s son

Subhash came to me and informed that my father used to beat

my mother and said that their life is in danger. It is also stated by

him that upon receiving information about death of my daughter, I

made a phone call to my another son-in-law PW-7 Jeewan Ram at

Suratgarh and made inquiry about the incident, my son-in-law

informed that the accused appellant Sultan Ram came in the

morning on the date of incident and said that I have killed my wife

Seema, kindly save me.

In the cross examination, although, number of questions

were put to this witness so as to disbelieve the prosecution case,

but it cannot be said that any false statement is made by the

witness PW-8 Kalu Ram.

PW-9 Subhash is the son of the accused appellant Sultan

Ram, who has stated about the conduct of the accused appellant

and said that behaviour of accused appellant was very

quarrelsome with whole of the family.

PW-10 Devaram stated that I received five sealed packets

from Malkhana and after obtaining forwarding letter from the

office of Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar, deposited all the

articles at FSL, Jodhpur for examination and obtained receipt

(Ex.P/15) on 31.05.2006.

PW-11 Tarachand is the photographer who was called by

the police on 25.04.2006 at the place of occurrence. The said

photographer took photographs of the place of occurrence and

dead body which is on record as Ex.P/18 to Ex.P/19.

PW-12 Narendra Kumar Sharma is the Investigating Officer,

who has supported the entire investigation conducted by him.

PW-13 Dalpat Singh was working as SHO PS Suratgarh on

27.05.2006. He has further conducted investigation after

transferring of the file to him and ultimately filed charge sheet

against the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC.

Upon assessment of the entire evidence, we are of the

opinion that there is no strength in the arguments of the learned

counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecution has

concocted a false story so as to involve the accused appellant

guilty for the offence of committing murder of his own wife on the

basis of confessional statement.

In our opinion, although, there are some contradictions in

the statement of Investigating Officer PW-12 Narendra Kumar

Sharma or in the statement of other witnesses but it cannot be

said that false case is concocted by the prosecution so as to

involve the accused appellant for murder of his own wife. It is also

very important to mention here that the cloths of the deceased

were recovered vide Ex.P/6 on 25.04.2006 in the hospital after

postmortem at 3:30 pm so also Kassi was recovered at 3:45 pm

vide Ex.P/7 as per information given by the accused appellant vide

Ex.P/22 under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act at 3:00 pm

but mere on the dispute of time consumed and distance of place

of occurrence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to

prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

It is also one of the important fact that before making

confessional statement before the SHO PS Suratgarh, the accused

appellant Sultan Ram went to the house of PW-7 Jeewan Ram and

made confessional statement before him, therefore, the FIR

registered upon the confessional statement of the accused

appellant cannot be disbelieved because before giving confessional

statement to the police, the accused appellant Sultan Ram went to

the house of PW-7 Jeewan Ram and made confession that he has

killed his wife Seema. The witness PW.7 Jeewan Ram asked the

accused appellant what I can do for him.

In view of the fact that the accused appellant accepted the

guilt which is corroborated by witnesses PW-7 Jeewan Ram and

PW-8 Kalu Ram, we are of the opinion that no error has been

committed by the trial court so as to held the accused appellant

Sultan Ram guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC. The

contention of the accused appellant that he has been falsely

implicated in this case on the basis of so called confessional

statement which is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act,

we are of the opinion that there is no strength in the said

arguments because before making confessional statement before

the police, the accused appellant went to the house of his

brother-in-law PW-7 Jeewan Ram and informed that he has killed

his wife Seema and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony

of this witness because there is no enmity in between him and

the accused appellant. The son of the accused appellant, PW-9

Subhash also made allegations on oath that the conduct of the

accused appellant was so bad with whole of the family members

and he used to beat his mother. Therefore, we are of the opinion

that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt

against the accused appellant.

In view of above discussions, there is no merit in this appeal,

therefore, is hereby dismissed.