Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, JJ.
Sarvan Ram – Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 217 of 2012
Decided On : 02-12-2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION - RECOVERY OF LATHI - HOSTILE WITNESSES - DOUBTFUL PROSECUTION CASE - ACQUITTAL: In a criminal appeal challenging a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to several factors, including: - The presence of witnesses who claimed to have heard an extrajudicial confession from the accused was doubtful. - The author of the FIR and other witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. - The recovery of a lathi, allegedly used in the murder, was not properly established, and there were contradictions in the statements of witnesses regarding the recovery. - The FSL report showed the presence of blood on the lathi, but the recovery memo stated that no blood was found. The court concluded that the prosecution case was seriously doubtful and acquitted the accused appellant, directing his release forthwith subject to furnishing a personal and surety bond.
Fact of the Case:
The accused appellant, Sarvan Ram @ Pillu, was convicted by the trial court for the murder of his wife, Smt. Raju, under Section 302 of the IPC. The prosecution's case was based on extrajudicial confessions allegedly made by the accused to two witnesses, the recovery of a lathi used in the murder, and the testimony of the complainant, the deceased's sister. However, the complainant and other witnesses turned hostile during the trial, and the presence of the witnesses who claimed to have heard the extrajudicial confession was doubtful.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to the following reasons: - The presence of the witnesses who claimed to have heard the extrajudicial confession was doubtful, as their statements were inconsistent and their presence at the scene of the crime was not corroborated by other evidence. - The author of the FIR and other witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, weakening the credibility of the prosecution's evidence. - The recovery of the lathi was not properly established, as there were contradictions in the statements of witnesses regarding the recovery, and the recovery memo stated that no blood was found on the lathi, while the FSL report showed the presence of blood. - The prosecution's case was seriously doubtful, and the court could not rely on circumstantial evidence to convict the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the extrajudicial confession of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the recovery of the lathi was properly established and corroborated by reliable evidence. 3. Whether the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses who turned hostile could be relied upon to support the prosecution's case. 4. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the extrajudicial confession of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to the doubtful presence of the witnesses and the lack of corroborating evidence. The court also found that the recovery of the lathi was not properly established, as there were contradictions in the statements of witnesses and the recovery memo stated that no blood was found on the lathi, while the FSL report showed the presence of blood. Additionally, the court noted that the complainant and other witnesses turned hostile during the trial, weakening the credibility of the prosecution's evidence. As a result, the court concluded that the prosecution's case was seriously doubtful and acquitted the accused.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal appeal filed by the accused appellant, quashed the impugned judgment of conviction, and directed the release of the accused forthwith, subject to furnishing a personal and surety bond.
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.
1. In this criminal appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the accused appellant has challenged the judgment dated 02.12.2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, in Session Case No. 33/2010, by which accused appellant, Sarvan Ram @ Pillu was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, with the default stipulation to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that upon a written complaint (Ex. P/2) filed by complainant, Lichhma W/o Kashiram, sister of deceased, Smt. Raju, an FIR No. 255/2010 (Ex. P/34) dated 18.05.2010 was registered at about 20.15 PM in Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar. In the complaint, the complainant, PW. Lichhma, alleged that her younger sister, namely, Raju (deceased) was married with Sharvan Ram @ Pillu, her brother-in-law as well, five years ago. Her sister was having two daughters from their wedlock and she was living by the side of her house separately. According to complainant, Lichhma, her brother-in-law was working at Mohangarh as a labourer, from where he used to come after 2-3 months to take care of family. According to complainant, her sister was not possession good moral character. Today, his brother-in-law went at Jaitsar Mandi, and around 04.30 complainant PW.3, Lichhma, went to canal for picking up sticks, and upon returning back to her home at 7'O clock, it was come to her knowledge that a quarrel took place in between her sister and brother-in-law, Sarvan Ram, therefore, went to the house of her sister and accused appellant, where the dead body of her sister, Smt. Raju, was lying on the cot. According to complainant, accused appellant killed her sister by inflicting "Lathi" blow upon her head and neck.
3. Upon the aforesaid complaint, FIR (Ex. P/34) was registered at Police Station- Raisinghnagar, and after registration of the FIR, the S.H.O., Police Station Raisinghnagar, went on the spot and prepared site plan and other details vide Ex. P/27 and Ex. P/27A respective, on 19.05.2010. Blood stained threat ("Jevdi") of the cot was taken in possession vide recovery memo (Ex. P/28) in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Udaram and Nirmal Kumar. The "Panchnama" of the dead body was prepared vide Ex. P/17 on 19.05.2010 at 10.30 AM. Similarly, the details of the dead body upon the place of occurrence was recorded vide Ex. P/18 in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Nirmal Kumar and Udaram. The ornaments of the deceased which wore at the time of death, were handed over to the father of the deceased, namely, Kojaram, in the presence of two witnesses, Nirmal Kumar and Udaram. Blood stained mud and simple soil was taken from the house of Khetam vide Ex. P/20. One clip and pieces of bangles were also taken in possession vide Ex. P/22 at 06.00 PM on 19.05.2016 itself. During investigation, the accused appellant was arrested vide Ex. P/30 at 07.30 PM on 19.05.2010. After arrest, upon the information given by the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, one "Lathi" was recovered vide recovery memo dated 21.05.2010 (Ex. P/23) at about 06.45 PM in the presence of two witnesses, Nirmal Kumar and Prithvi Ram. Site plan of the place where the "Lathi" was recovered, was also prepared.
4. The clothes of the deceased viz. "Salwar" and "Jamper" were also taken in possession vide Ex. P/25 on 19.05.2010 in the presence of Kojaram and Nirmal Kumar. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted by the Medical Board at Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar and postmortem report (Ex. P/7) dated 19.05.2010 was obtained by the Investigating Officer for further investigation. Dead body of deceased was handed to the father of deceased, Kojaram vide Ex. P/26.
5. In the investigation, statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charg
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
