Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Nirmaljit Kaur, Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ.
Ramswaroop – Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 920 of 2011
Decided On : 28-09-2018
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY - DELAY IN RECORDING STATEMENT - INTENTION TO KILL - SECTION 304 PART II IPC - DISTINGUISHABLE JUDGMENTS - CORROBORATION OF EVIDENCE - RECOVERY OF BLOOD-STAINED CLOTHES AND WEAPON OF OFFENCE - FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY REPORT - CONFIRMATION OF CONVICTION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Ramswaroop, was convicted by the trial court for the murder of his wife, Anjana, under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of the deceased's son, Mayank, who was an injured eyewitness to the incident, as well as the statements of neighbors who heard Mayank crying and saw him being brought out of the house. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was falsely implicated due to strained relations with his father-in-law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimony of Mayank was credible and corroborated by the statements of the neighbors. The court also noted the recovery of blood-stained clothes and the weapon of offense, as well as the presence of human blood on the articles sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which further supported the prosecution's case. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the delay in recording Mayank's statement affected its credibility, as there was no evidence of tutoring or extraneous considerations.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimony of the injured eyewitness, Mayank, was credible and reliable. 2. Whether the delay in recording Mayank's statement affected its credibility. 3. Whether the appellant had the intention to kill his wife or whether the case fell under Section 304 Part II IPC. 4. Whether the judgments cited by the appellant were distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the testimony of Mayank was credible and reliable, as it was corroborated by the statements of the neighbors and the physical evidence. 2. The court found that the delay in recording Mayank's statement did not affect its credibility, as there was no evidence of tutoring or extraneous considerations. 3. The court held that the appellant had the intention to kill his wife, as evidenced by the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the recovery of the blood-stained clothes and weapon of offense. 4. The court distinguished the judgments cited by the appellant on the grounds that they involved different factual circumstances and did not undermine the prosecution's case in the present case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife under Section 302 IPC.
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
The counsel for the appellant had pleaded no instructions in the matter, therefore, on 27.09.2018 Mr. Bhagat Dadhich, learned counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue on behalf of the accused-appellant and the matter was adjourned for hearing on 28.09.2018.
2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant Ramswaroop against the judgment dated 02.09.2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.16/2011 by which the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 302, 323 & 342 IPC and sentenced as under:
Under Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default thereof to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.
Under Section 323 IPC: Six months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.
Under Section 342 IPC: Six months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.
3. The prosecution story emanates from the fact that on 25.02.2011 a telephone call was received by Shri Ranveer Singh, SHO, Police Station Rawatsar (PW-7) in which it was informed that Ramswaroop who lives in Gandheli has killed his wife, therefore, after recording this information in the Rojnamcha (Daily Diary) as DD entry No.1499(Ex.P-17), he reached the place of incident, where a written complaint (Ex.P-1) was submitted by Bhaira Ram (PW-4), the father of the deceased Anjana on the same day. In his complaint, Bhaira Ram stated that his daughter Anjana was married to Ramswaroop S/o Purn Ram, R/o 12 GB, Tehsil Vijaynagar, Sri Ganganagar. After keeping his daughter well in the first two years of marriage, the accused started beating her and when all conciliation proceedings failed, a case for the offence under Section 498 IPC was filed against the accused Ramswaroop. The relationship remained strained for sometime but after counselling by the Court, they started living normally for last six months. On 24.02.2011 Ramswaroop killed his wife Anjana in his home town Gandheli and after beating his son he was locked in a separate room. On the next day i.e. 25.02.2011 in the morning when neighbours heard the noise of crying of the child, they entered into the house by scalling the wall and saw that the kid (son of deceased Anjana) was weeping in the room. The room was locked from outside. He was taken out of the room and on entering the other room they saw that Anjana was lying dead in a pool of blood. On asking the kid Mayank, he told that his father has killed his mother Anjana and after giving beatings to him he was locked in another room. On the aforesaid complaint, a formal FIR was registered and the matter was investigated by the police. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 302, 323 and 342 IPC was filed against the accused-appellant.
4. Learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 323 and 342 IPC for committing murder of his wife Anjana and causing injury to his son Mayank and the same was read over and explained to him but he denied the charges and sought for trial in the matter.
5. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and 28 documents were exhibited.
6. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he is innocent. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as his father-in-law does not want his family to settle down nicely because his wife is a Govt. teacher and his father-in-law wants her entire salary because he used to say that he had imparted education to his daughter and had spent a lot of money on it. He further stated that his wife was having illicit relations with Vijay Lal and Madan Lal and one
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
