1992 Supreme(Raj) 913
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
A.K.Mathur, Rajendra Saxena, JJ.
Poonma - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 212 of 1986.
Decided On : 20-10-1992
The prosecution has the burden of proving the offence against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is not required to prove his innocence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION FOR MURDER - EVIDENCE - RELIABILITY - MOTIVE - BURDEN OF PROOF - RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his niece, Kumari Soni, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had committed the murder in order to falsely implicate the complainant party in a land dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution evidence was vague, incomplete, inconsistent, unnatural, and untrustworthy. The court also found that the motive for the crime had not been satisfactorily explained and that the defence theory appeared to be quite probable.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to the right of private defence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The court found that the prosecution evidence was vague, incomplete, inconsistent, unnatural, and untrustworthy. The court also found that the motive for the crime had not been satisfactorily explained and that the defence theory appeared to be quite probable. 2. The court did not discuss the issue of the appellant's right to private defence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 24th April, 1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, whereby he convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that PW 11 Khanu Ram Bishnoi is the recorded khatedar of agricultural holding bearing khasra No, 108 measuring 30 bigha and 13 biswa situated in village Aleti. It is alleged that appellant Poonma and his brothers Gordhau (DW 2) and Badra (DW 6) fraudulently got a registered sale - deed dated 22-11-82 (Ex.D 4) executed from Khanu Ram in their favour in respect of the said land, though no consideration was passed nor possession thereof was given to them. Smt. Gavri, wife of Khanu Ram along with her sons, therefore, filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against appellant Poonma Ram and his brothers in respect of the disputed land, wherein the S.D.O. Barmer was scheduled to inspect the disputed land. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17-6-1985, PW 9 Ashu, who is the son-in-law of PW 11 Khanu Ram and who is resident of village Bhand, came to village Aleti and informed Khanu Ram that the S.D.O. will be coming to inspect the site and asked the latter to go there Hence in the morning of 18.6-1985 PW 11 Khanu Ram along with his wife Sint. Gavri and son Sada Ram (PW 8) went to their Dhani (hemlet) situated in that field. It is alleged that appellant Poonma and his brothers Faglu, Gordhan, Chokha and their wives who were already there, asked them to go away from there and thereatened to forcibly oust them. It is alleged that thereupon Khanu, Smt. Gavri and Sada Ram returned and while they were going back to their 'Dhani.' near village Aleti, PW 9 Ashu and PW 2 Purkha Jat met them in the way and to - whom they narrated the said incident. It is also the case of the prosecution that Ashu and Purkha Jat told them that they will go to the disputed field and talk to the appellant and his brothers. Thereafter, Ashu, Purkha and Sada Ram went towards the said field, while Khanu and his wife stayed back. It is alleged that when they reached near the disputed field appellant Poonma armed with a dharia along with Faglu. Gordhan and Chokha, who had lathis and their wives as well as Kutnari Soni aged 10 years daughter of Badra Ram (who were empty handed) came out from the 'Dhani' and asked them not to enter in the disputed field, When Ashu, Sada and Purkha were about 50-60 paces away, all of a sudden appellant Poonma Ram inflicted two dharia blows on the head and neck of his niece Kumari Soni in quick succession causing injuries to her, and that she fell down bleeding profusely. Kumari Soni succumbed to those injuries. According to the prosecution story, the appellant had committed the murder of Kumari Soni so that Khanu Rain and his companions may be falsely implicated and thereby prevented from taking the possession of the disputed field. The information regarding the said incident was given by the Sada Ram to PW 1 Uda Ram, who was performing the ,Hawan' at the house of his uncle Teja Ram on the third day of the death of his grand-mother. PW 1 Uda in his turn lodged report Ex. P. I on the same day at about 5.30 p. m. at Police Station Dhorimanna and on the basis of which FIR Ex. P-12 was scribed and crime No. 62/85 under section 302 Indian Penal Code was registered. PW 14 Bhanwar Singh, S.H.O. inspected the site, prepared site plan, and its memo, memo of dead body of Kumari Soni and Panchnama Ex. P 3 and Ex P 14 and seized and sealed the blood - stained soil and controlled sample of soil from the place where the dead body was found lying. The appellant was arrested on 19-6-1985 vide arrest memo Ex. D.3 wherein the injuries sustained by him were specifically mentioned. It is alleged that in pursuance to the information given by the appellant vide information memo Ex. P-21, blood - stained dh
Click Here to Read the rest of this document