Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ratan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:38142-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 175/1993
Ratan Lal S/o Jai Raj, R/o Semalia, P.S. Nimbahera, Distt.
Chittorgarh.
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms.Priyanka Borana, Amicus Curiae
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sameer Pareek, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
Judgment Reserved on : 10.09.2024
Judgment Pronounced on : 19.09.2024
[Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Munnuri Laxman] :
1) The present appeal challenges the judgment of conviction
dated 03.05.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Nimbahera, Distt. Chittorgarh on the file of Sessions Case
No.39/1992, wherein and whereby the appellant was convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to
life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of
fine to further undergo 6 months' imprisonment.
2) Brief facts of the case are that on 15.12.1990 at 3:40
p.m., one Ghashi Regar along with 12-13 other persons came to
the Police Station Nimbahera and lodged a report to the effect that
a dead body of a man was lying in the khaali (channel) near the
[2024:RJ-JD:38142-DB] (2 of 6) [CRLA-175/1993]
eastern boundary of Jai Raj Dhakad's field. It was also stated that
the blood was also lying in the field and they heard in the village
that Phool Chand son of Jai Raj Dhakad had been missing since
day before yesterday. The complainant stated that he was
informed by one Ramchandra that a dead body was lying there
and then he too went there. The feet of the corpse were
uncovered and the entire body was wrapped with a blanket. The
police registered the FIR and commenced the investigation. The
Investigating Officer found that the said dead body is of Phool
Chand.
3) The Police after investigation presented charge-sheet
against the appellant-accused for offence under Section 302/201
of IPC. The chargesheet reveals that the deceased-Phool Chand
and accused-Ratan Lal are real brother. On the date of incident,
both allegedly went to sleep in the field. While the deceased was
sleeping in the field, appellant-accused allegedly slit the
deceased's neck with an axe. The body was then wrapped in a
blanket and thrown near the channel of the field. The accused was
supplied with copies of charge-sheet and on the basis of the
material available on record, he was charged for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The charge was framed,
read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
4) The prosecution in support of its case examined as many
as 17 witnesses and relied upon the documents under Exhibit-P/1
to P/21. Accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
denied all the incriminating evidence against him. He did not
[2024:RJ-JD:38142-DB] (3 of 6) [CRLA-175/1993]
adduce any oral evidence in defence, however, produced one
document Exhibit-D/1.
5) The Trial Court on the basis of evidence available on
record found that the appellant-accused was guilty of the offence
under Section 302 of IPC and accordingly, convicted and
sentenced him with the term as indicated herein-above. Hence,
the present appeal.
6) Ms. Priyanka Borana, learned Amicus Curiae appearing
for the appellant-accused has vehemently contended that the
conviction of the appellant was based on evidence, which was not
incriminating against him. She also contended that on the basis of
suspicion and surmises, the conviction was made. There is no
plausible evidence, which would incriminate the involvement of
the appellant in the alleged offence under Section 302 of IPC.
7) Learned Amicus Curiae also contended that the chain of
circumstances, which has been relied upon by the prosecution was
utterly broken and there is no linkage in the circumstances, which
would point out the involvement of the appellant for the offences
charged.
8) Lastly, it is contended that the trial court was wrong in
relying upon the recoveries made under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act. The recoveries were made vide memo Exhibits-P/3
and P/9 i.e. axe and banyan (vest) of the accused in the presence
of PW-2 Arjun Singh and PW-4 Jai Chand respectively. The other
two material objects i.e. Guddadi and Kathaliya do not contain any
incriminating material so as to involve the appellant-accused with
the alleged offence; and prays for acquittal of the appellant from
the above charge.
[2024:RJ-JD:38142-DB] (4 of 6) [CRLA-175/1993]
9) The learned Public Prosecutor has tried to justify the
conviction of the appellant-accused. According to him, the
prosecution has established the motive of the appellant for
committing the murder of his brother. The evidence of PW-10
Shakar Lal indicates that the motive was a dispute between the
deceased and the appellant with regard to wheat harvesting
machine. Apart from the motive, the prosecution also established
the conduct of the accused when the dead body was discovered by
labourers Mst. Kali (PW-11) and Sayari (PW-15) and when such
information discovery of dead body was given to the accused, he
took promise from them not to disclose about discovery of the
dead body to anyone of the villagers. Apart from the above
conduct, the prosecution also established the recoveries made
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act from the evidence of PW-2 &
PW-4. These are circumstances, which were rightly relied upon by
the Trial Court to make conviction. Such a finding of conviction
does not require any interference.
10) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-
accused as well as learned Public Prosecutor and carefully perused
the record of the case.
11) Unfortunately, the trial court has recorded the finding
based on no incriminating evidence. The prosecution could only
establish the motive part with the evidence of PW-10 Shankar Lal
and PW-17 Kanku Bai (wife of the deceased). The evidence of PW-
11 and PW-15 only shows that when they discovered the dead
body wrapped in the blanket in the field of Jai Raj Dhakad and
when the same was informed to the accused, he took promise not
to tell about the discovery of dead body to anyone in the village.
[2024:RJ-JD:38142-DB] (5 of 6) [CRLA-175/1993]
The witnesses clearly said that all of them did not see whether the
dead body is that of Phool Chand or any other one. The identity of
the dead body was not discovered by PWs-11 & 15 on the day
when they discovered the dead body. The above conduct of the
accused could only create suspicion on the accused. Such conduct
itself would not amount that he caused the death of the deceased.
The recoveries, which have been made as the foundational
evidence for convicting the appellant-accused do not contain any
incriminating evidence. The FSL report is not available with regard
to axe and banyan. An axe is commonly available with every
farmer in villages and banyan is also commonly wearable apparel
and nothing incriminating is found on banyan. Such recovery is of
no help to the prosecution to point out that the appellant was
involved in the murder of the deceased. Absolutely, nothing is
found, which would incriminate against the appellant-accused with
the commission of the offence. The trial court has grossly erred in
relying upon such evidence for convicting the appellant-accused
and such conviction is liable to be set aside.
12) Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment
of conviction dated 03.05.1993 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Nimbahera in Sessions Case No.39/1992 is set
aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge for offence under
Section 302 of IPC. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand
discharged.
13) Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the
appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of
Rs.40,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the
learned Trial Court, which shall be made effective for a period of
[2024:RJ-JD:38142-DB] (6 of 6) [CRLA-175/1993]
six months, to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave
Petition against this judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant,
on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as soon as he would be called upon to do so.
14) This Court is thankful to Ms. Priyanka Borana, who has
rendered her assistance as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the
accused-appellant, in the present adjudication.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
NK/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
