State Of Rajasthan vs Megharam And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1500 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 70/1992 State of Rajasthan

----Appellant Versus

1. Megharam s/o Udaram Meghwal

2. Ladhuram s/o Mularam Meghwal

3. Babu Lal s/o Mularam Meghwal

4. Munaram s/o Udaram Meghwal

5. Himmataram s/o Kalaram Meghwal

6. Gangaram s/o Udaram Meghwal

7. Bhojaram s/o Lakhuram Meghwal

8. Kojaram s/o Gangaram Meghwal

9. Bhomaram s/o Udaram Meghwal

10. Panaram s/o Sukharam Meghwal

11. Magnaram s/o Ladhuram Meghwal, all residents of Khariya Pitavtan, District Bikaner.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. B.R. Bishnoi - PP
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit
                                Ms. Dimple Rajpurohit


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
                                 Judgment

08/02/2023

By the Court (Per Hon'ble Bhatnagar, J)

The appellant State has filed an appeal under Section 378(iii)

& (i) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 18.07.1991 passed

by the District & Sessions Judge, Bikaner (for short 'the trial

court') in Sessions Case No.46/89, whereby respondent Megharam

was acquitted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 and

323/149 IPC and other respondents Ladhuram, Babulal, Munaram,

Himmataram, Gangaram, Bhojaram, Kojaram, Bhomaram,

(2 of 12) [CRLA-70/1992]

Panaram and Magnaram were acquitted for the offences under

Sections 147, 148, 302/149 & 323/149 IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that one Bhikharam lodged a

report (Exhibit-P/1) dated 20.03.1989 at Police Station Kolayat

stating therein that on 21.03.1989 marriage of Govindram's son

was going to be solemnized; however, on account of the enmity

between Megharam's party and the complainant, he was forbidden

to attend the marriage and the villagers called both the parties

near the well on 20.03.1989 for settling their disputes. When the

complainant's party, including Bhikharam Muknaram, Savantaram,

Urjaram, Utmaram, Deeparam, Mohanram etc., reached the well,

members of the accused party, namely Megharam, Bhomaram,

Gangaram, Munaram, Babulal, Kojaram, Ladhuram, Magnaram,

Bhojaram, Himmataram and Panaram were already standing there

having Lathi, Bachiyan and Axe in their hands and attacked the

complainant's party. Babulal inflicted an axe blow on the head of

Bhikahram, and Megharam inflicted a lathi blow on the head of

Sanvantaram. As a result, Savantaram became unconscious, and

Deeparam, Urjaram, Muknaram, Utmaram and Mohanram also got

injured in the incident.

On receiving the report (Exhibit-P/1), the police registered a

case under Sections 341, 323, 147, 148 and 149 I.P.C. and

started investigation.

Savantaram succumbed to his injuries, and his postmortem

(Exhibit-P/12) was done on 22.03.1989, and other persons,

namely Muknaram, Deeparam, Urjaram, Tanaram, Bhikharam,

Mohanram & Utmaram, suffered injuries.

After a thorough investigation, the police filed a challan

against the accused before the Addl. Munsif and Judicial

(3 of 12) [CRLA-70/1992]

Magistrate No.1, Bikaner, after that, the case was committed to

the trial court.

The accused persons were read over the charges on

22.5.1989; however, they denied the same and claimed trial. In

support of its case, the prosecution has produced as many as

thirteen witnesses and got the statements of accused respondents

recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; however, they did not

examine any witness.

After hearing arguments advanced by learned counsel for the

parties and scrutinizing the evidence available on record, the trial

court acquitted the accused-respondents for the offences

punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149 & 323/149

IPC.

Assailing the judgment dated 18.07.1991 passed by the trial

court, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial court

has grossly erred in acquitting the respondent Megharam for the

offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 323/149 IPC and other

respondents Ladhuram, Babulal, Munaram, Himmataram,

Gangaram, Bhojaram, Kojaram, Bhomaram, Panaram & Magnaram

for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 & 323/149 IPC.

The counsel argued that though the eyewitnesses have

supported the prosecution case, yet the trial court illegally

disbelieved their testimonies and erred in acquitting the accused

respondents. Furthermore, it is contended that the learned trial

court has also erred in not considering the statements of PW-9 Dr

R.K. Gehlot and PW-12 Dr Nar Singh Bittu.

The learned counsel argued that the statements of

prosecution witnesses reveal that the accused party attacked the

complainant's party when they assembled for compromise. He

(4 of 12) [CRLA-70/1992]

further argued that the learned trial court has erred in recording

the finding that the prosecution needs to explain the injuries

sustained by the accused respondents. He further argued that the

prosecution need not to explain the injuries, which are simple in

nature and in the present case injuries sustained by the accused

respondents were simple in nature. Therefore, the appellant prays

for setting aside the impugned judgment and conviction of the

respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 and

323/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

Per contra learned counsel for the respondents argued that

the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. It is

contended that the learned trial court has meticulously considered

every aspect regarding the credibility of all the material

eyewitnesses.

Learned counsel further argued that the learned trial court

had rightly noticed the discrepancies in the statements of

prosecution witnesses, and the learned trial court was correct in

not relying upon the evidence of the eyewitnesses. The learned

counsel contended that the prosecution has suppressed the

material facts regarding injuries caused to the accused

respondents, and its version is inconsistent.

It is asserted that in the F.I.R., it has been stated that all the

assailants were armed with weapons, and when the complainant's

party reached the scene of offence, they attacked them. In

contrast, the witnesses have deposed different versions before the

trial court, and the learned trial court rightly disbelieved their

testimonies.

It is also pleaded that the independent eyewitnesses PW-7

Hari Singh and PW-8 Ranulal have not supported the prosecution

(5 of 12) [CRLA-70/1992]

story and have been declared hostile. After a lengthy cross-

examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, they denied the

prosecution story.

The counsel further argues that no case for interference in

the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is

warranted and prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

During the pendency of the present appeal, respondent

No. 11 - Magnaram and respondent No. 2 - Laduram have died,

and the appeal against them stands abated by this Court vide

orders dated 24.01.2022 and 25.08.2022, respectively.

The first question that arises for consideration would be

whether the death of the deceased Savantaram was homicidal?

Regarding which the trial court has answered in the affirmative,

holding the death to be homicidal, after relying on the statement

of PW-9 Dr R.K Gehlot, who has proved the postmortem report

(Exhibit-P/12). In our considered opinion, the finding of homicidal

death recorded by the trial court, based upon the medical

evidence, is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Even

otherwise, the cause of the deceased's death remains

unquestioned by the appellant or the respondents; therefore, this

Court affirms the finding recorded by the learned trial court that

the deceased Savantaram's death was homicidal.

The prosecution case rests on the following eyewitnesses to

prove its case under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302 of the Indian

Penal Code:-

PW-1 - Khiyan Ram PW-2 - Champaram PW-3 - Bhikharam (scriber of F.I.R. Exhibit-P/1)

(6 of 12) [CRLA-70/1992]

PW-4 - Deeparam PW-5 - Utmaram PW-6 - Tanaram PW-7 - Harisingh PW-8 - Ranulal.

As per the prosecution version, the accused respondents,

armed with deadly weapons, assembled near the well for

compromise, purposely for attending the marriage of Govindram's

son in the presence of PW-7 Harisingh and PW-8 Ranulal and,

after the arrival of the complainant's party, attacked them with the

lathi, axe and Barchis, resulting in injuries to Savantaram, who

died later, and to Muknaram, Deeparam, Urjaram, Tanaram,

Bhikharam, Mohanram & Utmaram.

The respondents deny the prosecution's story, allege

suppressing the genesis, and have provided a specific defence

concerning injuries sustained during the occurrence to Megharam,

Bhomaram, Gangaram and Pemaram.

PW-7 Harisingh is the person in whose presence the entire

occurrence occurred; he has deposed that the accused and

complainant's party assembled near the well and were ready for

the compromise. He also stated that the accused party left for

their home after entering a settlement and did not see

respondents causing the injuries with lathi and axe to

Savantaram, Muknaram, Deeparam, Urjaram, Tanaram,

Bhikharam, Mohanram & Utmaram.

Thus, PW-7 Harisingh denied the prosecution story and

stated that the accused party left the place of occurrence and did

not see respondents causing injuries with a lathi, axe and Barchi

to Savantaram, Muknaram, Deeparam, Urjaram, Tanaram,

(7 of 12) [CRLA-70/1992]

Bhikharam, Mohanram & Utmaram. Instead, in his examination

chief alleged Muknaram and Deeparam for having lathis and

barchi.

After a lengthy cross-examination by the learned Public

Prosecutor, PW-7 Harisingh repudiated the entire prosecution

story. In his cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused

respondents, the witness told a different story and stated that the

complainant's party had arms in their hands and saw Meghram

having injuries on his body.

The deposition of PW-7 Harisingh does not reveal the true

story and avoids the actual genesis. However, he admits that in

his presence, both parties agreed to participate in Govindram

son's marriage. He also acknowledges the existence of both

parties at the place of occurrence. However, he denies any injuries

caused by the respondents to Savantaram, Muknaram, Deeparam,

Urjaram, Tanaram, Bhikharam, Mohanram & Utmaram. Thus, his

evidence partially supports the defence version that the

complainant's party had arms with them, and he saw injuries to

accused Megharam. Hence his statement is not helping the

prosecution's version.

Similarly, PW-8 Ranulal has also not supported the

prosecution story and denied any injuries caused by the

respondents to Savantaram, Muknaram, Deeparam, Urjaram,

Tanaram, Bhikharam, Mohanram & Utmaram. On cross-

examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he refuted the

prosecution story.

Thus, both the above referred material eye witnesses have

deposed nothing against the accused respondents.

(8 of 12) [CRLA-70/1992]

Before appreciating and analyzing the evidence of other

eyewitnesses, PW-1 Khiyanram, PW-2 Champaram, PW-3

Bhikharam, PW-4 Deeparam, PW-5 Utmaram and PW-6 Tanaram,

it would be appropriate to mention the statements of PW-12 Dr

Nar Singh Bittu and Investigating Officer PW-13 Sahiram.

PW-12 Dr Nar Singh Bittu, in his cross-examination, discloses

that he also examined the injuries sustained by accused

respondents Baburam, Megharam, Bhomaram, Gangaram and

Panaram. Accordingly, he accepts the preparation of their injury

reports as Exhibit D/17 and Exhibit D/21.

Upon perusal, it is evident from the injury reports Exhibits-

D/17 to D/21 that accused Baburam suffered four injuries,

accused Megharam suffered 11 injuries, accused Bhomaram

suffered one injury, accused Gangaram suffered six injuries and

accused Panaram complained of pain on his left shoulder. Thus, it

is the admitted position that the accused respondents Baburam,

Megharam, Bhomaram and Gangaram suffered injuries.

PW-13 Sahiram in his cross-examination, insofar as relevant

on page four, has admitted that the accused respondents also

suffered injuries on their bodies. The arrest memo mentions the

same, and the concerned doctor also examined the accused

respondents. He has also admitted that the injuries sustained by

the accused, Megharam, are mentioned in Exhibit D/3.

PW-1 Khiyanram, in his examination-in-chief, has narrated

that accused Laduram abused the deceased Savantaram, and

afterwards, the altercation occurred. Savantaram was struck on

his head by accused Megharam, and other accused also inflicted

various injuries on Deeparam and Bhikharam. In his cross-

(9 of 12) [CRLA-70/1992]

examination, insofar as relevant, he has denied any previous

disputes between the accused party and the complainant's party.

He has only stated that there was a dispute between the deceased

Savantaram and Megharam. In his cross-examination, he denied

the presence of eyewitnesses PW-7 Harisingh and PW-8 Ranulal.

He has also denied that he gave the statement (Exhibit-D/1)

stating the existence of Harisingh and Ranulal at the place of

occurrence and denied any injuries caused to Megharam,

Baburam, Gangaram and Panaram. It is also pertinent to mention

here that Exhibit-P/1 says that when the complainant's party

reached the well, accused Megharam, Bhomaram, Gangaram,

Munaram, Baburam, Kojaram, Laduram, Manganram, Bhomaram,

Himtaram and Pannaram were present with the arms in their

hands and they attacked the complainant's party, however, in his

court statement PW-1 Khiyanram expressed that the altercation

occurred due to abuse by Laduram to the deceased Savantaram.

In contrast, in the F.I.R., it has been stated that when the

complainant's party reached the well, the accused Megharam,

Bhomaram, Gangaram, Munaram, Baburam, Kojaram, Laduram,

Manganram, Bhomaram, Himtaram and Pannaram were present

with the arms in their hands. They suddenly attacked the

complainant's party.

In such circumstances, the testimony of this witness is not

reliable and the learned trial court has rightly disbelieved his

testimony.

Similarly, PW-2 Champaram has also stated that the

altercation took place due to abusing by Laduram to Savantaram,

and this version is not consistent with the prosecution story.

(10 of 12) [CRLA-70/1992]

Moreover, PW-2 Champaram, PW-3 Bhikharam, PW-4 Deeparam,

PW-5 Utmaram and PW-6 Tanaram belong to the same family, to

which, Savantaram is related, therefore, their version is also

unsafe to rely upon.

Similarly, PW-3 - Bhikharam, PW-4 - Deeparam, PW-5 -

Utmaram and PW-6 - Tanaram also deny causing injuries to the

accused respondents Baburam, Megharam, Bhomaram, Gangaram

and Panaram, however, all the above witnesses support the

prosecution's version about causing injury to the deceased

Savantaram by accused Megharam by Lathi and by accused

Baburam, Bhomaram to Muknaram, Deeparam, Urjaram, Tanaram,

Bhikharam, Mohanram & Utmaram.

It is a settled law that in a murder case, non-explanation of

the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the

occurrence or in the course of the altercation is a significant

circumstance from which the Court can draw the following

inferences:-

(1) The prosecution has suppressed the occurrence's genesis and

origin and still needs to present the accurate version.

(2) The witnesses, who have denied the presence of the injuries

on the person of the accused, are lying on the most material point

and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable.

(3) That in case there is a defence version, which explains the

injuries on the person of the accused, it is rendered probable to

throw doubt on the prosecution case.

It is clear from the record that relations between the parties

were not cordial. The injuries sustained by the accused

respondents were not minor and cannot be brushed aside only

(11 of 12) [CRLA-70/1992]

because of their nature. Accused Megharam has suffered at least

ten injuries on various body parts, and similarly, accused

Bohmaram and Gangaram have suffered multiple injuries on their

body parts. The denial of the eyewitnesses regarding the injuries

caused to the accused respondents is suggestive that the

witnesses are concealing the actual genesis, and it is unsafe to

rely upon the testimonies of the so-called eyewitnesses. The

evidence of the Eyewitnesses PW-1 Khiyaram, PW- Champaram,

PW-3 Bhikharam, PW-4 Deeparam, PW-5 Uttamaram PW-6

Tanaram is unreliable and it does not encourage the belief of the

Court as such to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a

reasonable doubt.

It is true that the testimony of interested witnesses is not a

sole criterion to disbelieve their versions, however, in this case,

material eyewitnesses are concealing the factual aspects.

Further, if witnesses endeavour to disguise or obscure the

facts and deviate from their versions, it's easier to infer the

chances of implication and exaggeration of the story.

Saddling the defence to explain all facts is not the spirit of

criminal jurisprudence; instead, it's the liability of the prosecution

to put forth and elucidate the material elements concerning the

advent and commission of the crime. It's not desired from the

defence to fetch for every glaring fact and then carry it before the

Court.

From the version of material eyewitnesses, it is explicit that

the conflict emerged due to the impulsive vitriol of Ladhram to

Savantaram and, as such, the prosecution's story of forming

unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object to cause

(12 of 12) [CRLA-70/1992]

injuries to the injured is not digestible. Further, the unexplained

injuries to the accused persons demonstrate that both parties

were involved in the sudden fighting, hence prosecution's

narration of forming the unlawful assembly by the accused-

appellants seems to be an afterthought and orchestrated. Albeit

the learned trial court did not scrutinize the case deeming the

analogy of the free fight, even assuming that analogy the

evidence brought forth does not transpire truthfulness and its

unsafe to trust upon the inconsistent depositions of all the

eyewitnesses, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly

disbelieved the testimony of all the witnesses and acquitted the

respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 and

323/149 IPC.

In view of the above, we don't find any merit in this criminal

appeal preferred by the appellant-State and the same is,

therefore, dismissed.

Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

AK Chouhan/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)