1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
JUDGMENT
RATAN LAL VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN.
D.B. Criminal Appeal No.696/2004
under section 374 Cr.P.C. against the
judgment and order dated 27.02.2004
passed by the Additional District &
Sessions Judge, (Fast Track),No.1,
Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.60/2003.
Date of Judgment: 21 July, 2010
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI
Mr. Dungar Singh for the appellant.
Mr. A.R.Nikub, Public Prosecutor.
BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE JOSHI, J.):
This criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant
Ratan Lal s/o Pyarchand , by caste Gadari, r/o Seturiya, District
Bhilwara against the judgment and order dated 27.02.04 passed
by learned Addl.District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1,
Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.60/2003
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 13.07.02,
at 07.55 AM Jawaharlal s/o Bhawani Ram r/o Lakhola gave a
telephonic information that body of Harlal was lying in his field
situated near Gayatri temple , Lakhola. There were injuries on
2
the head of Harlal. On this information ,Mustkeem Khan , Sub-
Inspector, Police Station Gangapur reached at the spot where
Shanker Lal, brother of the deceased, gave a report alleging
interalia that at about 07.30 AM his grand daughter in-law
Anita informed him that Harlal was not responding to the
calls, on which complainant went to the field and saw that his
brother Harlal was lying dead with serious injuries on his
head. This report was lodged by Shankerlal Darji. On the basis
of this information Ex.P/1, case No.259/02 was registered at
Police Station, Gangapur and the investigation commenced.
During the course of investigation, accused appellant Ratan
Lal was arrested, statement of the witnesses were recorded
and at the instance of the information recorded under section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act, weapon of offence was recovered and
after usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the court
of Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur, for the commission
of offence under section 302 IPC, from where the case was
committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara and from
there to the court of Addl.District & Sessions Judge ( Fast Track)
No.1, Bhilwara for trial.
The accused appellant Ratan Lal was charged under
sections 302 and 447 IPC for which the accused did not plead
guilty and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses,
namely , PW/1. Shanker Lal PW/2 Ratan Lal PW/3 Shanti Lal,
3
PW/4 Kishan Lal , PW/5 Ramkanya , PW/6 Ram Lal, PW/7 Anita
, PW/8 Kailash , PW/9 Lehru, PW/10 Naru, PW/11 Bheru Lal ,
PW/12 Munna Lal Sharma , PW/13 Jagdish Chandra, PW/14
Nirbhay Singh , PW/15 Mustkim Khan, PW/16 Ladu Lal , PW/17
Roopkishore, PW/18 Bheru Lal, PW/19 Bhanwar Singh, PW/20
Dr. Amarchand Mahavar and PW/21 Bhagvati Lal, in support
of the case.
The accused was examined under section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. and the accused appellant did not choose to lead any
defence.
On the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge
proceeded to convict the accused appellant for the commission of
the offence charged under section 302 IPC and convicted him
for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further to
undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment in default of
payment of the fine . For offence under section 447 IPC the
learned trial Judge awarded a sentence of three month’s
rigorous imprisonment and further ordered that the substantive
sentences be run concurrently.
The learned trial Judge considered the following
circumstances for recording conviction and sentence against the
accused appellant.
(1) The cause of the death of the deceased was due to
head injuries, resulting in fracture of the parietal bone
causing haemorrhage and shock,
4
(2)On 13.07. 02, before the examination of the dead
body of Harlal, articles 1 to 4, the clothes of the
deceased, were seized vide memo Ex.P/4 .
(3) On 13.07.02 deceased Harlal’s chappal , torch, blood
stained pillow , and blood stained tripal were recovered
from the place of incident vide memo Ex.P/6.
(4) At the instance of the information of the accused,
recorded under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
Ex.P/74, blood stained stick (weapon of offence) was
recovered.
(5) At the instance of the information of the accused
appellant under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
blood stained shirt and pants were recovered vide
memo Ex.P/ 71.
(6) There was a motive on the part of the accused
appellant regarding the minor daughter of PW/10 Naru ,
who was kidnapped by the accused appellant.
(7) In the midnight of 12.07.02 and 13.07.02 deceased
was sleeping in his field alone and there was an
opportunity with the accused to kill him.
While considering the cumulative effect of all these
circumstances , the learned trial Judge convicted the accused
appellant for the commission of offence under section 302 and
447 IPC .
The contention of the learned counsel for the accused
5
appellant is that the learned trial Judge had not appreciated the
prosecution evidence in the light of the facts available on
record. He further argued that there was no eye witness in
this case and the case completely rested on circumstantial
evidences. The prosecution had not been able to prove that the
links in the chain of events were so probable, so as to be
inconsistent with any possibility of innocence of the accused. As
per the contention of the learned counsel for the accused
appellant , many vital links were missing.
The next contention of the learned counsel for the accused
appellant was that the lathi, (the weapon of offence), was
recovered from a Well and as per PW/2, Ratan Lal who took out
the lathi from the Well, there was some water in the Well. More-
over, staining on the lathi in the form of a band of 3 to 4 inches
width was highly improbable and , therefore , also the recovery
of lathi , (the weapon of offence) was not free from doubt. The
blood stained clothes of the accused appellant, were not
recovered from the conscious possession of the accused. More
over the prosecution had failed to prove the motive of the crime
on the part of the accused appellant. The motive so alleged by
the prosecution was that, about two years back the accused
appellant had eloped with the daughter of Naru, and Harlal the
deceased was the witness in that criminal case filed against the
accused appellant.
Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
defended the judgment of the learned trial Judge and argued
6
that the circumstantial evidence available against the accused
appellant in itself constituted a complete chain of events and
the learned trial Judge considered every circumstantial
evidence in a careful manner . Therefore, the judgment and the
order of sentence recorded by the learned trial judge, did not
suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
PW/1 Shankerlal is the elder brother of the deceased,
Harlal and he deposed that about six months previous to his
statement , at about 6 or 7.00 AM in the morning , his daughter
-in-law Anita, informed that Harlal’s body was lying in a blood
stained position in the field. He, along with Ramlal Chhajer
went to Harlal’s field and saw that Harlal was dead and blood
was oozing from his forehead due to head injuries. The police
reached Harlal’s field at 08.00 AM after which he reported the
matter to the police through report, Ex.P/1. Police prepared
the site memo and other memos of recovery of the blood stained
clothes of the deceased.
PW/2 Ratan Lal deposed that the investigating officer
inspected the site of incident and prepared memo Ex.P/2.
Further , the investigating officer seized some articles like
chappel and torch through Ex.P/6 and he was also witness to
memo Ex.P/7 , P/8 and P/9.
PW/3 Shantilal did not corroborate the evidence of the
prosecution, therefore, he was declared hostile.
7
PW/4 Kishan Lal deposed about the execution of memo
Ex.P/3. PW/5 Ramkanya , PW/6 Ram Lal, PW/7 Anita , PW/8
Kailash , and PW/9 Lehru,deposed about the fact that in the
morning, Anita saw the dead body of Harlal and informed all
these persons.
PW/10 Naru is the concerned witness of the prosecution,
regarding the motive of the accused appellant to cause the death
of the deceased. He deposed that three years previous to his
statement, his daughter Sugna had eloped with Ratan Lal ,
the accused appellant. The fact of this elopement came to the
knowledge of Harlal and then he , along with Harlal, went to
Bhilwara and from there they brought his daughter back.
Harlal told him that Ratanlal threatened him for this act.
PW/11 Bheru Lal did not corroborate the evidence of
prosecution and therefore, was declared hostile.
PW/12 Munna Lal deposed about the conducting of the
videography about the recovery of the weapon of offence from
the Well. PW/13 Jagdish Chandra also deposed about the
photographs Ex.P/10 to Ex.P/36, and the negative Ex.P/37 to
63.
PW/14 Nirbhay Singh is the person who carried the
malkhana articles in the sealed condition from police station
Gangapur to the S.P.Office, Bhilwara and then after receiving
forwarding letter from the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, he
8
carried the articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Udaipur.
PW/15 Mustkim Khan, and PW/17 Roopkishore, are the
investigating officers , out of which PW/15 Mustkim Khan
received the telephonic information on 13.07.02 at 07.55 AM
regarding the dead body of Harlal lying in his field, on which he
subscribed that information in Rojnamcha Ex.P/69.
PW/17 Roopkishore deposed about the registration of
case No.259/02 and also deposed about the fact of arrest of
Ratanlal vide Ex.P/73. Further both the witnesses deposed about
the subsequent investigations.
PW/18 Bhanwar Singh and PW/19 Bherulal are police
officers who conducted the investigation during the course of
investigation.
PW/16 Lalulal did not corroborate the evidence of the
prosecution, therefore, he was declared hostile.
PW/20 Dr.Amarchand is the doctor who conducted the
autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Harlal and found the
following injuries on the person of Harlal :
“ब ह पर कण :- न.1 कचल हआ घ व खन जम हआ 3 सम
x 1 सम . हड क गहर इ तक । जजस पर फन$ल ब%न क
फकचर थ ।
न.2. कचल हआ घ व जजस पर खन जम हआ थ । 6 सम x
2 सम x हड क गहर ब इ भह* पर।
न.3 कचल हआ घ व जजसम+ खन जम हआ । सम x आध
सम x हड क गहर ब इ भह% पर ।
न.4 कचल हआ घ व 6 सम X 2 सम x हड तक गहर लफ$
9पर इ$ल ब%न क फकचर ।
न.5 कचल हआ घ व जजस पर खन जम हआ 4 सम x 1 सम
x ब%न ससर क ओकस प $ल भ ग पर ।
न.6 कचल हआ घ व जजस पर खन जम हआ थ 3 सम X 1
सम ओकस प $ल पर
न.7 खर*च जजस पर क ल पन आय थ 1 सम x 1 सम ब इ
क%हन क प छल भ ग पर ।
न. 8 खर%च जजस पर खन जम हआ 2 सम x 1 सम . ब य
ग ल पर ।
न. 9 खर*च जजस पर क ल पन आय हआ थ आध सम x
आध सम ब य+ $ ग पर उपर भ ग पर ।
न.10 खर*च जजस पर क ल पन आय हआ थ । 3 सम . x ढ ई
सम . ब ई $ ग क मधय भ ग पर
न. 11 उपर क चम क म8$ प ल कय9ट$कल ल%स ज% 8 स
10 थ आध सम x आध सम . ब य+ क%हन क स मन ।
न.12 म8$ ल कय9ट$कल ल%स 18 स 20 सखय आध सम x
आध सम . ब य+ घ$न क स मन भ तर भ ग पर
न. 13 म8$ पल कय9$ कल ल%स 18-20 थ आध सम x आध
सम . ब य+ प व पर $खन पर ।
आनतररक पर कण :- ससर ख%ल गय । ससर क फन$ल व
पर इ$ल ब%न पर %समन$ फकचर ब इ ओर । ससर क चम क
न च ख9न क थकक जम हआ । ससर क हड ख%लन पर
फन$ल व पर इ$ल ब%न भ ग पर खन जम हआ थ । सकल
क ऐन$ र ल ओर सम ल क%रससय म+ फकचर थ । बन क% ढकन
व ल झB8ल ब इ तरफ 7 सम x 2 सम क$ हई थ । बन
म ल जह स फ$ हआ थ बन ट$सस9 वह स ब हर आय हआ
थ। ब इ तरफ जह झB8ल क$ हई थ बन ट$सय9 कचल हआ
थ। म8$ पल लसर$ वण आध सम X आध सम . बन
पन$ल पर इ$ल ए $मप%रल पर थ ब इ तरफ थ ।"
PW/9 Lehru,deposed about sending the forwarding letter
to the Forensic Science Laboratory by S.P. Office Bhilwara.
As per the evidence available on record, there is only
circumstantial evidence, on which the learned trial Judge relied
and after appreciation of the circumstantial evidence,
considered the seven circumstances against the accused
appellant and sentenced the accused appellant as above.
10
We have considered the rival contentions of learned
counsel for the parties and also evaluated and scanned the
evidence on record.
The case entirely hinges upon the circumstantial evidence.
The wooden log which was used as weapon of offence is of
7kgs. weight and its diameter is also about 16 fingers.
We are in complete agreement with the argument
advanced by the defence counsel that the multiple injuries of
very very small dimension cannot be caused by such an object.
The blood on the said wooden log is told to be spread over 6
to 7 inches length and 3 to 4 inches in width , which is also an
additional doubtful circumstance. Further, had there been an
intention to kill Harlal, the accused would have carried with
himself weapon also. It is undenied and undeviated that the
person who allegedly killed had not brought any weapon with
him. Of course the death of Harlal is homicide, but till a chain of
circumstances, pointing out at the guilt of accused and
excluding all probabilities of his innocence, have not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt, accused appellant cannot be held
guilty of offence charged. Therefore, looking to the entirety of
facts and evidence available on record, the conviction cannot be
sustained.
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the
accused appellant Ratan Lal s/o Pyarchand is acquitted of the
11
charge levelled against him under section 302 and 447 IPC.
The judgment and order dated 27.02.2004 passed by the
learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge,(Fast Track) No.1,
Bhilwara , in Sessions Case No.60/2003 is set aside. The
accused appellant Ratan Lal be set at liberty, if not required in
any other case.
(KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI),J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J.
l.george