Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1984 Supreme(Raj) 324

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.S.Byas, J.
Anant Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 229 of 1977.
Decided On : 19-04-1984

Advocates:
For the Appellant:Mr. Makhtoor Mal Singhvi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. L.S. Udawat, P.P.

The court emphasized the importance of carefully scrutinizing dying declarations, extrajudicial confessions, and other circumstantial evidence to ensure their reliability and trustworthiness in criminal cases.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 304 PART I, 450 IPC] - [DYING DECLARATION, EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION, RECOVERY OF KNIFE, WITNESS TESTIMONY] - Summary of the legal framework applied by the court in reaching its decision, including key legal provisions, their interpretations, and how they influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:

The accused, Anant Ram, was convicted of murder (Section 302 IPC) and house-trespass (Section 450 IPC) for fatally stabbing the deceased victim, Smt. Manjula, in her home. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including dying declarations, extrajudicial confession, recovery of the murder weapon, and eyewitness testimony.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The dying declarations of the victim, corroborated by other evidence, were found to be reliable and trustworthy. The extrajudicial confession, though not sufficient on its own, further strengthened the prosecution's case. The recovery of the knife, with human blood on it, from the accused's house provided strong corroboration to the dying declarations. The eyewitness testimony of Ashok Rai, who saw the accused hurriedly running away from the victim's house just after the occurrence, further supported the prosecution's case.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proven its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the dying declarations of the victim were admissible and reliable. 3. Whether the extrajudicial confession of the accused was admissible and reliable. 4. Whether the recovery of the knife from the accused's house was admissible and reliable. 5. Whether the eyewitness testimony of Ashok Rai was admissible and reliable. 6. Whether the offence committed by the accused fell under Section 304 Part I or Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had successfully proven its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the totality of the evidence presented. 2. The court found that the dying declarations of the victim were admissible and reliable, as they were made during the course of investigation and were corroborated by other evidence. 3. The court held that the extrajudicial confession of the accused was admissible and reliable, though not sufficient on its own to convict the accused. 4. The court found that the recovery of the knife from the accused's house was admissible and reliable, as it was made in consequence of the accused's disclosure statement and was corroborated by the presence of human blood on the knife. 5. The court held that the eyewitness testimony of Ashok Rai was admissible and reliable, as he had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. 6. The court held that the offence committed by the accused fell under Section 304 Part I of the IPC, as the injury caused to the victim was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the accused's appeal and upheld his conviction and sentence under Sections 304 Part I and 450 of the IPC. The court allowed the accused one month to surrender before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, failing which he would be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the unexpired portion of his sentence.

JUDGMENT

1. - By his judgment dated April 26, 1977 the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur convicted the accused Anant Ram Under Sections 304, Part I and 450, IPC and sentenced him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment on the first and five years' like imprisonmnent on the second count. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused has comeup in appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence.

2. Briefly recalled, the fact and circumstances leading to the prosecution and conviction of the accused are that the deceased-victim Smt. Manjula was the wife of PW 1 Gokul Prasad. Gokul Prasad was employed in the Fire-brigade Unit of the Municipal Council, Jodhpur. The accused was also employed there in the same unit. The accused picked up friendship with Gokul Prasad and started visiting his house. Gokul Prasad started treating the accused his younger brother. At the relevent time in June, 1976 Gokul Prasad was living with his wife and children in Pratap Nagar Colony, Jodhpur. On June 17, 1976, Gokul Prasad left the house and went on duty to Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur, at about 1.00 P.M. on that day the deceased-victim Manjula was sleeping on the floor of a room in her house along with her three minor children, none above the age of six years. All of a sudden she felt pressure on her chest and neck. She got awake and saw the accused on her chest. He wanted to take liberty with her which she resisted. The accused then pressed her neck and struck blows with a knife on her abdomen and lower parts. There was profuse bleeding from her wounds and the clothes she was wearing got-drenched with it. A few moments later, PW 3 Ku. Sharmila d/o PW 4 Smt. Meera, whose house is situate nearby, came there where Manjula was lying. She saw the victim in a pool of blood. Smt. Manjula told her what had happened with her. Ku. Sharmila went to her mother PW 4 Smt. Meera and apprised her of the situation. PW 2 Subash, who is the son of Smt. Meera (PW 4) was immediately sent to Gokul Prasad (PW 1). Gokul Prasad came to his house and saw Smt. Manjula lying on the floor of the room. She apprised him of the incident. Gokul Prasad immediately took her in a three-wheeler auto-rickshaw to M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur. She was admitted therein for treatment. It was then near about 4.00 P.M. At about 4.30 P.M., the Police Station, Soorsagar was informed on telephone about the injured condition of the victim and her being admitted in the hospital for treatment. The Station House Officer Pepsingh (PW 9) immediately reached the hospital at about 5.00 P.M. Smt. Manjula was then unconscious. She regained consciousness at about 7.00 P.M. The SHO Pepsingb recorded her statement Ex. P 1 in which she narrated the whole incident. The police treated Ex. P 1 as the First Infomation Report and registered a case thereunder. The victim's injuries were examined at about 3.40 P.M. on June 17, 1976 by the Medical Jurist Dr. R.K. Gehlot (PW 5). He noticed the following injuries on her person:

(1) Incised wound 1.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. and muscle deep 5.00 cm. to the left of umblious vertically placed

(2) Incised wound 1.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x skin deep about 4 cm. below and lateral to injury No. 1 obliquely placed

(3) Abrasion 10 cm. x 0.5 cm. in the mid-line of neck just below the thyroid cartilage

(4) Bruise 4.0 cm. x 1.6 cm. on the middle of the neck just above the thyroid cartilage

(5) There was incised wound 'V' shaped, the lateral part was larger. It was Situated just lateral to left labia majora in the upper ⅔rd region. The medial limb was measuring 4.5 cm. x 0.8 cm. and the lateral limb was measuring 5.7 cm. x 1.0 cm. The injury was bone deep.
Injuries No. 1,2 and 5 were opined to have been caused by some sharp edged Weapon while the remaining two by some blunt object. Injury No. 5 was designated as grievous and also as dangerous to life. On X-ray examination it revealed that there was fracture of left public bone.The report issued by him is Ex.P 7. The Investigating Officer visited the site

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1984 Supreme(Raj) 324

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTS.S.Byas, J.Anant Ram - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentS.B. Cr. Appeal No. 229 of 1977.Decided On : 19-04-1984

The court emphasized the importance of carefully scrutinizing dying declarations, extrajudicial confessions, and other circumstantial evidence to ensure their reliability and trustworthiness in criminal cases.

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.S.Byas, J.
Anant Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 229 of 1977.
Decided On : 19-04-1984