State Of Rajasthan vs Ram Niwas And Anr ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 998 Raj

[2023/RJJD/002213]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 273/1992 State of Rajasthan

----Appellant Versus

1. Ram Niwas S/o Shri Naurang Ram, B/c Jat,

2. Naurang Ram S/o Shri Gopal Ram, B/c Jat, Both R/o Khasoli, P.S. Ratan Nagar, District Churu.

----Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor For Respondents : Mr. Vinit Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi

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

25/01/2023

By the Court (Per Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J) :

This criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the

appellant-State being aggrieved by the judgment dated

17.02.1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu (hereinafter to

be referred as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No.22/91,

whereby the trial court has acquitted the respondents for the

offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302/120-B IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that on 18.11.1990 at about

10:00 AM, one Ratan Lal Darji R/o Ratan Nagar, District Churu

furnished an information that some time ago when he was coming

from Churu to Ratan Nagar, a passenger sitting in the tempo told

him that on the right side of Churu - Ratan Nagar Road, one dead

body is lying. On the basis of the said information, the SHO, Police

Station Ratan Nagar, District Churu visited the site along with

[2023/RJJD/002213] (2 of 5) [CRLA-273/1992]

some police personnel and found a dead body of unknown person

lying on Churu - Ratan Nagar Road and a towel was tied around

the neck of that dead body. After preparation of Inspection Memo

as well as Memo of Recovery of dead body and after recovering

the other articles, the F.I.R. (Exhibit-P/22) was filed and

investigation was started under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against

some unknown persons.

During the course of investigation, the police recorded

statements of several witnesses and thereafter filed charge-sheet

against respondent No.1 - Ram Niwas for the offences punishable

under Sections 302, 120-B and 379 IPC as well as against

respondent No.2 - Naurang Ram for the offences punishable

under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC.

The trial court framed the charges against respondent No.1

for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, whereas framed

the charges against respondent No.2 for the offences punishable

under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC.

It is noticed that during the pendency of the present appeal,

respondent No.1 - Ram Niwas died on 27.08.2022 and the appeal

qua him has been abated by this Court vide order dated

18.01.2023.

Assailing the judgment dated 17.02.1992 passed by the trial

court, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the trial

court has grossly erred in acquitting respondent No.2 - Naurang

Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B

IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution

has produced PW-5 Jeevan Ram and PW-7 Arjun Ram, in front of

[2023/RJJD/002213] (3 of 5) [CRLA-273/1992]

whom, respondent No.2 confessed that he hatched a conspiracy

along with co-accused respondent No.1 - Ram Niwas to kill

deceased - Ratna Ram. It is also submitted that the respondent

No.2 also confessed about the commission of crime in front of PW-

3 Mani Ram, PW-4 Ramu Ram, PW-15 Kurha Ram, PW-18 Surja

Ram and PW-20 Tauru Ram. It is argued that the trial court has

illegally disbelieved the testimony of all those witnesses and erred

in acquitting the accused respondent No.2 for the offences

punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. It is, therefore,

argued that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court may

kindly be set aside and the accused respondent No.2 may kindly

be convicted for the offences, for which he was charged by the

trial court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has

argued that the extra judicial confession is a weak piece of

evidence and unless there is some corroboration, the same cannot

be relied. It is also argued that there was no occasion for the

respondent No.2 to confess about the alleged crime before the so

called prosecution witnesses, with whom he was not having

friendly relation. It is further submitted that the discrepancies in

the statements of the prosecution witnesses have rightly been

noticed by the trial court and the trial court was right in not

relying upon the evidence of those prosecution witnesses. It is,

therefore, prayed that no case for interference in the impugned

judgment passed by the trial court is made out and the appeal

filed by the appellant-State may kindly be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

[2023/RJJD/002213] (4 of 5) [CRLA-273/1992]

As noticed earlier, during the pendency of the present

appeal, respondent No.1 - Ram Niwas has expired and the appeal

against him has already been abated.

Now we have to examine whether the prosecution has

proved the charges against the respondent No.2 for the offences

punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC or not.

To prove the charges against the respondent No.2, as noticed

earlier, no direct evidence was produced by the prosecution and

the case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence

particularly the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the

respondent No.2 in front of PW-4 Ramu Ram, PW-5 Jeevan Ram,

PW-7 Arjun Ram, PW-15 Kurha Ram and PW-18 Surja Ram.

The trial court has disbelieved the testimony of all the above

referred witnesses while observing that from the evidence

available on record, it is clear that all the above referred witnesses

were annoyed as the deceased - Rana Ram adopted Om Prakash,

who happened to be the son of respondent No.2 and brother of

respondent No.1, and some disputes were going on between

them. The trial court has also observed that from the evidence of

PW-5 Jeevan Ram and PW-7 Arjun Ram, it is clear that both the

witnesses gave descriptions of different words, which were used

by accused respondent No.2 while confessing the crime.

The trial court, after analyzing the various discrepancies in

the statements of prosecution witnesses such as date and time of

death of deceased - Ratna Ram, has further observed that as per

the version of the Investigating Officer no tyre marks of the

motorcycle were found near the dead body though the allegation

[2023/RJJD/002213] (5 of 5) [CRLA-273/1992]

was that the accused respondent No.1 - Ram Niwas accompanied

deceased - Ratna Ram on motorcycle and murdered him.

It is true that extra judicial confession is always treated as

weak piece of evidence and the Courts are normally reluctant, in

the absence of corroborating evidence, to rely on the said piece of

evidence for the purpose of recording a conviction.

As stated earlier and taking into consideration the

observations of the trial court that the relationship between the so

called witnesses, in front of whom the respondent No.2 made

confession, and the respondent No.2 are not cordial and there was

no occasion for him to make confession before them, we are of

the view that the trial court has not committed any error in

disbelieving the evidence of the aforesaid so called witnesses,

before whom the respondent No.2 made extra judicial confession.

The prosecution has failed to produce any other evidence

except the so called extra judicial confession to prove the charges

against the respondent No.2 and also failed to produce any

corroborative evidence in support of the alleged extra judicial

confession.

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

Abhishek Kumar S.No.94

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)