Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suman Devi vs State on 18 September, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:37717-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 126/2013
Ram Pratap @ Pratap
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 125/2013
Suman Devi
----Appellant
Versus
State
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jubin Mehta, Amicus Curiae
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Gurjar, GA cum AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
Reserved on 03/09/2024
Pronounced on 18/09/2024
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. These criminal appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. have
been preferred claiming, in sum and substance the following
reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed
that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 27.11.2012 passed by Addl.
Sessions Judge Bhadra District Bikaner qua the present
appellant may kindly be quashed and set aside and the
appellant may kindly be acquitted from the charges levelled
against him."
[2024:RJ-JD:37717-DB] (2 of 13) [CRLA-126/2013]
2. The accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2012 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh
('Trial Court'), in Sessions Case No.07/2012 (State of Rajasthan
Vs. Ram Pratap @ Pratap & Anr.), whereby the present accused-
appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below:
Conviction under Sentence Fine
Section
302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.50,000/- (each of
the accused-
appellants), in
default to undergo
further One Year's
(each of the accused
appellants) R.I.
3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, on
25.02.2012, one Brijlal (complainant) submitted a written report
(Ex.P/1) before the Police Station, Godamedi, stating therein that
his son, namely Narendra Kumar alongwith his wife (Suman) was
living separately from the complainant, and accused-appellant
Suman (wife of complainant's son) was having an illicit
relationship with one Rampratap @ Pratap (accused-appellant). It
was further stated that the said relationship was objected several
times by the complainant's son, the complainant himself and one
Dholuram (another son of the complainant), and despite
Panchayat being held, the said relationship between accused
appellants/Rampratap @ Pratap & Suman continued.
3.1. It was also stated that on 25.02.2012 at around 01:00 pm,
on hearing the cries of the complainant's son Naresh, the
[2024:RJ-JD:37717-DB] (3 of 13) [CRLA-126/2013]
complainant and his son Dholuram reached the house of
Nareshand found that a wire rope (taar ki rassi) was around the
neck of Naresh at the instance of accused-appellants/ Rampratap
@ Pratap and Suman (wife of Naresh), and they were
strangulating the neck of Naresh by the said wire rope. On hearing
the shouts of the complainant and his son Dholuram, the accused-
appellants/Rampratap @ Pratap and Suman fled away from the
said house, whereafter they went near Naresh and found him
dead.
3.2. On the basis of the aforementioned report, a case bearing
No.36/2012 was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC
and the investigation commenced accordingly. After investigation,
the police filed a charge-sheet under Section 302/34 IPC against
the accused-appellants.
3.3. On 05.06.2012, the learned Trial Court framed the charges
against the accused-appellants under Section 302/34 IPC; the
same upon being read over to the accused-appellants, were
denied by them and they claimed trial, and the trial accordingly
commenced.
3.4. During the trial, the prosecution produced 13 witnesses and
exhibited 1-34A documents; in defence, 02 documents were
exhibited for examination. The accused persons were examined
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein while pleading not guilty, the
accused-appellants stated that they had been falsely implicated in
this case.
[2024:RJ-JD:37717-DB] (4 of 13) [CRLA-126/2013]
3.5. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties
as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record,
the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the present
accused-appellants, as above, vide the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2012, against which
the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accused-
appellants.
4. Mr. Jubin Mehta, learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-
appellants submitted that the testimonies of the three eye
witnesses clearly shows the contradictions wherein, inasmuch as
PW.1-Ajay was, at the relevant time, aged 8 years and his
statement clearly reveals that he was a tutored witness, as his
version was exaggerated and influenced by his grandparents.
Therefore, his testimony was not reliable. It was further submitted
that when PW.1 cried, at that time only the other two eye
witnesses i.e PW.2-Brij Lal & PW.3-Dholu heard his voice and no
one else had come, which in the given circumstances, also casts a
shadow of doubt on the prosecution story.
4.1. It was further submitted that PW.1 stated that he saw the
incident through a bulb in a School located opposite to their
house, however, no school has found as per the site map prepared
by the police authority, and therefore, this shows that PW.1 was
influenced by his grandparents.
4.2. It was also submitted that PW.11-Laxminarayan was the only
independent witness and stated that the distance between the
house of deceased and house of PW.2 & PW.3 was 1.5 kms., and in
such circumstance, as per PW.2 & PW.3, they have heard the voice
[2024:RJ-JD:37717-DB] (5 of 13) [CRLA-126/2013]
of PW.1, whereupon immediately they reached to the place of
incident in question and saw the accused-appellants murdering
the deceased, which version, in the given circumstances, does not
hold any ground, more particularly, when allegedly the voice of
PW.1 was coming from a far distance.
4.3. It was further submitted that the manner in which the
investigation was conducted, was grossly erroneous, because at
the time of recovery of the weapon (Wire), two constable were
made as witnesses (motbirs), which shows that there was no
independent witness to the said recovery. It was also submitted
that no FSL report as regards the blood on that wire was produced
before the learned Trial Court during the trial.
4.4. It was further submitted that no neighbour, no family
member of accused-Pratap @ Ram Pratap has been produced as
witness, nor any kind of examination has been done at the
instance of the prosecution, which also shows that the prosecution
story is completely fabricated and concocted, so as to falsely
implicate the present accused-appellants in this case.
4.5. It was also submitted that though as per the prosecution,
there was an illicit relationship between the accused-Pratap @
Ram Pratap and accused-Suman (wife of deceased) but in support
of the same, no reliable evidence has been produced by the
prosecution, which makes it clear no motive was on part of the
appellants to commit the crime in question.
4.6. It was further submitted that as per the postmortem report
(Ex.P/30), there was no injury around the neck of the deceased,
and neither any marks were found on his skin, nor any blood was
[2024:RJ-JD:37717-DB] (6 of 13) [CRLA-126/2013]
recovered from the weapon (wire). It was also submitted that the
FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of 13 hours.
4.7. It was also submitted accused-appellants are behind the bars
since 26.02.2012 i.e. in custody for last more than 12 years.
4.8. In support of the such submissions, learned counsel relied
upon the following judgments:-
(a) Pradeep Vs. The State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No.
553/2012, decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 05.07.2023);
(b) Chiranji Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Criminal Appeal No.
428/1985, decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court
at Jaipur Bench on 24.08.1987); and
(c) Saudan Singh Vs. The State of U.P. (Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No. 4633/2021, order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court).
5. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Gurjar, learned Government
Advocate cum Additional Advocate General, while opposing the
aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellants,
submitted that there were three eye-witnesses of the incident in
question, and all of them have completely supported the
prosecution story.
5.1. It was further submitted that as per the eye witnesses, they
saw the accused-appellants committing the murder of the
deceased, owing to the illicit relationship between the accused-
appellants, which has been seriously objected, at the relevant
time, by the deceased.
5.2. It was also submitted that PW.1, at the time relevant time,
was aged 8 years and is the son of the deceased and accused-
[2024:RJ-JD:37717-DB] (7 of 13) [CRLA-126/2013]
Suman, who had clearly stated that the accused-appellants
committed the crime in question, and the manner in which such
testimony was rendered, by no stretch of imagination, it can be
said that he was influenced by any other person or the
prosecution, more particularly, looking into the fact that the said
testimony was consistent and without any contradiction. It was
further submitted that the police authority recovered the weapon
(Wire), on the basis of the information given by the accused-
appellants.
5.3. It was also submitted that the accused-appellants did not
produce any defence witness, nor any explanation was furnished
by them, in defence, at the time of their examination under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that the entire
incident happened during midnight, and therefore, the delay of 13
hours in lodging of the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case.
5.4. It was also submitted that PW. 12-Dr. Vijaypal Yadav
completely supported the prosecution story and stated that the
injuries were caused to the deceased due to strangulation and not
by hanging. Thus, the learned Trial Court duly considered the said
aspect of the matter, amongst others, and also duly appreciated
the material and evidence placed on record before it, prior to
passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, and thus, the same does not warrant any interference
by this Court in the present appeals.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.
[2024:RJ-JD:37717-DB] (8 of 13) [CRLA-126/2013]
7. This Court observes that in the present case, the allegation
against the accused-appellants is that they committed the murder
of the deceased and vide the impugned judgment, the accused-
appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as above.
8. This Court further observes that there were three eye
witnesses in the present case, namely, PW.1 Ajay, (Son of
deceased and accused-Suman), PW.2-Brijlal (Father of deceased)
and PW.3-Dholu (Brother of deceased).
8.1. A perusal of the testimony of eye witness PW.1, who, at the
relevant time, was 8 years, shows that he was present at the
time of incident in question and that he stated that when the
deceased woke up and went for nature call, the said witness heard
the deceased's shouts, whereupon, the said witness woke up and
saw that accused-appellant-Suman (his mother) held hands of the
deceased while accused-Ram Pratap @ Pratap was sitting over the
waist of the deceased, putting a wire (weapon) around the
deceased's neck and was pulling up the deceased. Upon
witnessing this, the said witness started crying loudly, on which
his grandfather (PW.2) and Uncle (PW.3) came, and on seeing
them, the accused-appellants ran away from the place of incident.
8.2. This Court also observes that a perusal of the testimonies of
PW.2 and PW.3, reveals that when they heard the voice of PW.1,
they immediately came his house and saw the accused-appellants
strangulating the deceased by wire (weapon), that was found
around the neck of the deceased, and when the said witnesses
intervened such act, the accused-appellants run away,
[2024:RJ-JD:37717-DB] (9 of 13) [CRLA-126/2013]
immediately whereafter, the said witnesses found Naresh
(deceased) dead.
8.3. This Court further observes that as per his testimony, the
eyewitness PW.1 clear saw the accused-appellants causing death
of the deceased, and though, the said testimony may be having
some minor contradictions, the same have no adverse bearing on
the trustworthiness of such testimony, and that, the other two
eyewitnesses i.e. PW.2 and PW.3 have also fully supported the
prosecution story and there was no material contradiction in their
version. This Court also observes that PW.1, was present at the
place of incident prior to occurrence thereof, and thereafter, PW.2
& PW.3 came later and all the three, saw the accused-appellants
committing the crime in question, which in the given
circumstances cannot be said to be suffering from any material
contradiction, and therefore also, the contention of the accused-
appellants that there was no light near the place of incident, which
could have enabled the prosecution witnesses to have seen the
accused-appellants committing the crime in question, does not
hold any substantial ground.
8.4. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce
the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the cases of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu alias Deepu
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21 as hereunder:
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should
be of very high quality and caliber whose version should,
therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version
of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face
value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a
[2024:RJ-JD:37717-DB] (10 of 13) [CRLA-126/2013]
witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and
what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement
made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would
be the consistency of the statement right from the starting
point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness
makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It
should be natural and consistent with the case of the
prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any
prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness
should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of
any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no
circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum
of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the
sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with
each and every one of other supporting material such as the
recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence
committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The
said version should consistently match with the version of
every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be
akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence
where there should not be any missing link in the chain of
circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence
alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness
qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests
to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called
as a "sterling witness" whose version can be accepted by the
court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty
can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said
witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain
intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral,
documentary and material objects should match the said
version in material particulars in order to enable the court
trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the
other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of
the charge alleged."
9. This Court also observes that accused-Suman stated that at
the time of incident in question, she was in another village
[2024:RJ-JD:37717-DB] (11 of 13) [CRLA-126/2013]
namely, Gigorani and after coming to know about the incident, she
returned back to her matrimonial home (deceased-husband's
house) with her children alongwith her father; and accused-Ram
Pratap @ Pratap, who at the relevant time, took a plea that at the
relevant time, he was away in District Hisar (Haryana) in
connection with a marriage, but the said plea of alibi does not hold
any ground because the accused-appellants have not produced
any evidence in support of such plea, and to disprove their present
at the place of incident in question, at the relevant time, and that
eyewitnesses have clearly deposed to have seen the accused-
appellants committing the crime in question.
10. This Court further observes that on the basis of the
information given by accused-Ram Pratap @ Pratap, the wire
(weapon of murder) was recovered by the police authority from
the room of the accused vide Ex.P/20 and the same was
supported by the witnesses (motbirs) PW.6-Rajesh Singh and
PW.7- Praveen Kumar.
10.1. This Court also observes that as per the testimony of PW.13-
Indra Kumar, who was the investigation officer in the case, he
arrested the accused-appellants, and thereafter, recovered the
wire (weapon) on the basis of the information of the accused-
appellant Ram Pratap @ Pratap, and has also completely
supported the prosecution story.
11. This Court further observes that accused-Suman and accused-
Ram Pratap @ Pratap were having relationship in question and the
said version was fully supported by the prosecution witnesses,
therefore, the accused-appellants, owing to such relationship, in
[2024:RJ-JD:37717-DB] (12 of 13) [CRLA-126/2013]
the given circumstances, were having the intention to cause death
of the deceased. This Court also observes that the FIR was lodged
after a delay of 13 hours, the incident happened in midnight
(24.02.2012-25.02.2012), and apart from the above and looking
into the fact that accused-Suman is the daughter in law of the
complainant and wife of the deceased, such delay in lodging the
lodging the FIR does not adversely affect the prosecution case.
12. This Court finds that the deceased's postmortem (Ex.P/30)
was conducted by PW.12-Dr.Vijaypal Yadav, and during the
testimony before the learned Trial Court, he stated that a total of
5 injuries were caused to the deceased and injury no.5 was
caused on neck, which could not have been caused by hanging;
the said injury could have been caused only due to strangulation.
He further stated of having found blood coming out of the mouth
and nose of the deceased, as a result of strangulation. This Court
also observes that looking into the postmortem report as well as
testimony of PW.12, it is clear that the death in question was not
caused by hanging, and thus, was a planned murder of deceased,
and the said crime was committed by the accused-appellants.
13. This Court further observes that looking into entire evidence,
i.e. three eye witnesses, recovery of Wire (used for committing
the crime in question) from accused-appellant Ram Pratap @
Pratap, illicit relationship in question resulting into creation of
intention to commit the crime in question, and the postmortem
report as well as testimony of PW.12-Dr. Vijaypal Yadav, the
learned Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment
[2024:RJ-JD:37717-DB] (13 of 13) [CRLA-126/2013]
conviction and order of sentence against the accused-appellants
under Sections 302/34 IPC.
14. The judgments relied upon on behalf of the accused-
appellants do not render any assistance to their case.
15. Thus, on the basis of above analysis of the documentary and
oral evidence produced on record, this Court does not find any
illegality or perversity in the impugned conviction, as recorded by
the Trial Court in the impugned judgment. The learned Trial Court,
before passing the impugned judgment, has gone through the
evidence carefully and we have also undertaken the same
exercise, and in our opinion, the learned Trial Court has committed
no error whatsoever, in coming to the conclusion that the accused-
appellants had committed the crime in question
16. Consequently, the present appeals are dismissed, and
accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 27.11.2012 passed by learned Trial Court in
Session Case No.07/2012 is upheld. All pending applications
stand disposed of. The record of the learned Trial Court be
returned forthwith.
17. This Court is thankful to Mr. Jubin Mehta, who has rendered
his assistance as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused-
appellants, in the present adjudication.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
