Vishnu Soni and Others vs State of Rajasthan

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J—Vishnu Soni and Rani both have preferred appeals through Jail to assail the impugned judgment dated 19.3.2009 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hindaun City (Karauli). Both the appellants Vishnu Soni and Rani are husband and wife. Vishnu Kumar has instituted D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 562/2009 and Rani has preferred D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 1210/2009. Since in both the appeals common impugned judgment has been assailed, we shall decide both the appeals together.

Case of the prosecution is that both the appellants alongwith the deceased Kistoori Devi wife of Mulya Jogi, aged 60 years on 1.11.2007 had taken a room in a Dharamshala called Patthar Walo Ki Dharamshala, Nai Mandi, Hindaun City. On 3.11.2007 Ramdas (P.W.1), Manager of Dharamshala found Room No. 2 taken by both the appellants and the deceased Kistoori Devi bolted from outside. When nobody returned in the evening at about 6.30 P.M., police was called and room was opened. Inside the room, dead body of Kistoori Devi was found and silver anklets worn by her were found missing. Thus, the prosecution to secure conviction of the appellants relied upon evidence of, (i) last seen which has surfaced in the testimony of Ramdas (P.W.1); and (ii) recovery of anklets of the deceased from accused to complete chain of circumstances to arrive at the conclusion that the appellants alone had committed the offence.

Taking above two circumstances into consideration, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hindaun City vide impugned judgment dated 19.3.2009 held the appellants guilty of offences under Sections 302/34, 397/34, 364/34 IPC. Having convicted the appellants for above said offences, the trial Judge vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them as under:--

"U/s. 302/34 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

U/s. 397/34 IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default thereof to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

U/s. 364/34 IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-and in default thereof to undergo three months simple imprisonment."

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma (P.W.9) on 5.11.2007 at 3.50 P.M. conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kistoori deceased. Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma (P.W.9) was a member of the Medical Board alongwith Dr. B.K. Sharma and Dr. T.R. Gupta. According to the opinion of the Medical Board, cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling.

Prosecution in all examined eleven witnesses and proved on record documents Exhibit P.1 to P.32. Thereafter statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused in defence only relied upon Photograph (Ex. D.1).

Ramdas (P.W.1) is a star witness of the prosecution. He has witnessed the evidence of last seen and identification of the accused-appellants in the court for the first time. Ramdas (P.W.1) deposed that for last five years he was Manager of Patthar Walo Ki Dharamshala. On 1.11.2007 at about 1.30 P.M. Vishu Chand Soni alongwith his wife and an old lady and a child took room No. 2, after making entry in the register. Exhibit-P.1 is an entry in his hand and it bears signature of Vishnu Chand. Tariff of the room was settled as Rs. 45/-. He proved the tariff receipt as Exhibit-P.2. On 3.11.2007 at 12.00 noon he returned to Dharamshala and found that Room No. 2 was bolted from outside. He thought that inmates of the room may have gone out. Since no one returned till evening, police was called. Room was opened and the dead body was found. From examination of the dead body, it was found that anklets worn by the deceased were missing. The police carried inspection of the room and found one Fanar and one Chhaini and one bottle of Aldrin. Inquest was carried. In court, the witness identified Vishnu Chand and Rani as the one who came with the old lady to stay in Dharamshala.

Ajit Singh (P.W.2) was posted as ASI at City Police Post, Hindaun. On receipt of telephonic information, he alongwith two constables reached at Dharamshala and found the dead body and carried inspection of the room and the dead body and had prepared inquest report (Ex. P.5).

Roopanti (P.W.3) is daughter-in-law of the deceased. She stated that 10-11 months ago about 4-5 days before Diwali she returned to her house and found that mother-in-law was missing. The neighbours informed that her mother-in-law Kistoori had left in a Jeep alongwith a male person, a lady and a child. A search was carried to find her. Later, through newspaper they learnt about death of an old lady. They went at Hindaun Hospital. There they identified the dead body of Kistoori and further found that her anklets of silver were missing.

Nahna (P.W.4) daughter of the deceased was called to the hospital. She had identified the dead body.

Kaluram Gupta (P.W.5) on 29.11.2007 was posted as Tehsildar. In his presence, identification of anklets was carried. The witness identified the anklets recovered from Smt. Rani to be of the deceased.

Mahesh Chandra (P.W.6) stated that in his presence, police had taken into possession a bottle on which poison was written.

Pankaj Kumar (P.W.7) photographer had taken photographs of the dead body and the room.

Ram Niwas (P.W.8) was in-charge of Malkhana at Hindaun City. He has proved deposit of sealed packets and their onward transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

As already stated, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma (P.W.9) had carried autopsy on the dead body.

Leelaram Saini (P.W.10) stated that in his presence Rani appellant got anklets of deceased recovered in pursuance of disclosure made by her.

Man Singh Choudhary (P.W.11) being investigating officer proved various facets of investigation.

From the above evidence, as already stated, evidence of last seen has emerged in the testimony of Ramdas (P.W.1) qua both the appellants. Furthermore, from the testimony of witness it is evident that Smt. Rani made a disclosure statement (Ex. P.32) leading to recovery of two pieces of silver anklets vide recovery memo (Ex. P.23). We find that a similar disclosure (Ex. P.30) was also made by Vishnu Chand and he also got recovered two pieces of silver anklets vide memo (Ex. P.22).

So far evidence of last seen is concerned, Ramdas (P.W.1), Manager, had seen both the accused for the first time on 1.11.2007 and thereafter on 3.11.2007 and he identified both the accused who had accompanied the deceased for the first time in the court on 11.9.2008. Thus, identification of the accused for the first time in court is after about ten months. It is true that identification in court is a substantive piece of evidence, but the courts have always held that identification in court is not of much significance when accused is standing in the dock. Therefore, it is essential that to lend credence to the identification, test identification parade ought to have been conducted that too at the earliest. We find that an entry was made in the register maintained at Dharamshala which has been proved on record as Exhibit-P.1. The said entry contains signature of Vishnu. Neither specimen signature of Vishnu Soni were taken, nor any handwriting expert was examined. It has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court in numerous judgments that identification of the accused after a long gap ought not to form basis of conviction as it is not safe to rely upon the identification after a gap of long period.

In the present case, during investigation, the witness Ramdas (P.W.1) has not narrated the feature or marks of identification of accused. He is silent regarding height, colour, complexion, their gait, their body built as to whether accused were fat or thin. Suddenly, witness (P.W.1) had identified the accused after a gap of ten months. Whether the witness could have such a long retention regarding faces of accused, the Court has to be circumspect and should be on guard while examining the evidence of the witness, where extraordinary delay has occurred.

In Satya Narayan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 2007, decided on 6th July, 2015], a Division Bench of this court of which one of us (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.) was a member had taken note of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and has held as under:--

"The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dr. M.V. Ramana Reddy and Others, reported in A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court 1938 has held that the delay in holding the identification parade without giving any valid explanation make such identification doubtful.

In the case of Rajesh Govind Jagesha Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 160 : (2000) CriLJ 380 : (1999) 4 Crimes 331 : (1999) 9 JT 1 : (1999) 7 SCALE 14 : (1999) 8 SCC 428 : (1999) 4 SCR 277 Supp : (2000) 1 UJ 12 : (1999) AIRSCW 4246 : (1999) 9 Supreme 149 , the Hon''ble Apex Court holding that in that case of where delay for over five weeks in holding the test identification parade had occurred same is fatal to the prosecution as same has not been satisfactorily explained."

Now, we revert to the evidence of recovery of anklets at the behest of the accused.

Vishnu Soni on 11.11.2007 at 7.10 P.M. stated vide memo (Ex. P.30) that he kept concealed two parts of one anklet in his room and he can get the same recovered. Smt. Rani on 11.11.2007 at 7.15 P.M. suffered disclosure statement (Ex. P.32) that she has also kept concealed two part of one anklet in a room. Both the accused are husband and wife. In pursuance of these two disclosures recovery was affected from Vishnu Soni and Rani vide recovery memos (Ex. P.22 and Ex. P.23 respectively). We find that the disclosure statements (Ex. P.30 and Ex. P.32) are not attested by any independent witness.

In Rameshwar and Dinesh @ Pillu v. State of Rajasthan, [D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 158/2010, decided on 10.11.2014], a Division Bench of this court in which one of us (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.) was a member relying upon Harjit Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 3040 : (2002) 3 Crimes 158 : (2002) 6 JT 123 : (2002) 5 SCALE 644 : (2002) 6 SCC 739 : (2002) 1 SCR 581 Supp : (2002) AIRSCW 3393 : (2002) 5 Supreme 378 has held as under:--

"Having appreciated the evidence of the witness, it is to be noted that disclosure statement Ex-P/22 as made by Munesh is not attested by any witness what to say of any independent witness. Ex. P/22 is recorded on 31st July, 2006 at 11 P.M. It is only signed by SHO Police Station, Bhusawar Distt. Bharatpur. It was held in Harjit Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 3040 : (2002) 3 Crimes 158 : (2002) 6 JT 123 : (2002) 5 SCALE 644 : (2002) 6 SCC 739 : (2002) 1 SCR 581 Supp : (2002) AIRSCW 3393 : (2002) 5 Supreme 378 that disclosure statement should be signed by independent person and Investigating officer should not associate any eye witness with the recovery memos. In the present case, no witness was associated at the time when disclosure statement was made. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the disclosure statement was made voluntary without any duress or coercion. To justify voluntary character of disclosure statement, it ought to be recorded in the presence of witnesses, it is to be noted that Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act which says that nothing stated to police is admissible in evidence. Since Section 27 carve out an exception, it is necessary that prosecution must show some material to the Court to be satisfied that same was not fabricated, therefore, it is necessary that it should have been made in presence of some witnesses.".

Hence, due to non-attestation of disclosure statements, when recovery of silver anklet at the behest of both the accused i.e. husband and wife has been affected from a same room, make such a recovery doubtful especially when accused had not removed silver bracelets (Karas) worn by the deceased. However, even if for the sake of argument we believe the recovery of silver anklets, to us, this circumstance alone is not sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances so as to arrive at the conclusion that offence has been committed by the appellants. Hence, we extend the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellants.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them and their conviction and sentence is set aside.