Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 636
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
SANDEEP MEHTA, ABHAY CHATURVEDI, JJ.
Kheema Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 2015
Decided On : 01-07-2019
For the Appellant :Dhirendra Singh and Rajiv Bishnoi, Advocates
For the Respondents: N.S. Bhati, P.P.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 374 – Penal Code,1860 – Section 210, 302 and 366 – Offence of Murder – Whether proved – Appeal against conviction – Appellant convicted and order under challenged – Appeal – Held, Court opinion that the finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment that the accused-appellant administered poisonous substance to the deceased and thereby murdered her is lacking in pith and substance – Impugned judgment set aside and acquit the accused of the charges – Appeal allowed. (Para 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide the judgment dated 18.05.2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali District Pali in Sessions Case No. 2/2011:-Under Section 302 Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment. Under Section 366 Five years' RI and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo four months' simple imprisonment. Under Section 201 Five years' RI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence this appeal.
Findings of the case:
Court opinion that the finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment that the accused-appellant administered poisonous substance to the deceased and thereby murdered her is lacking in pith and substance – Impugned judgment set aside and acquit the accused of the charges.
Result: Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Mehta, J.
1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide the judgment dated 18.05.2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali District Pali in Sessions Case No. 2/2011:-
| Under Section 302 | Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment. |
| Under Section 366 | Five years' RI and a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo four months' simple imprisonment. |
| Under Section 201 | Five years' RI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment. |
(All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.)
2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 CrPC.
3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are noted hereinbelow.
4. Shri Ramaram S/o. Shri Khetaji, R/o Village Neepal, PS Desuri District Pali lodged a missing person report (Ex. P/17) to the SHO PS Desuri on 05.10.2010 alleging inter alia that his daughter Smt. Geeta had been married to Amra Ram Choudhary, resident of Village Barod. Two months earlier, she had come to his house for delivery because she was pregnant. She gave birth to a female child about 20-21 days earlier. On 04.10.2010, he and his family members had gone to the field and Smt. Geeta was at the house with her child. He returned home in the evening on which his mother-in-law told him that Geeta had gone out of the house at about 12 to 1 O'clock saying that she was going to the fields but she did not return home. Ramaram made inquiries with his relatives and in the neighbourhood but he could not get a trace of Smt. Geeta. Smt. Geeta was wearing a Ghaghra, blouse and red coloured Chundari and a few ornaments as well. He alleged that Smt. Geeta was having a mobile (No. 9680616811) which she had carried with her while going out of the house. On the basis of this report, a Missing Person Report No. 10 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPR') was registered at the Police Station Desuri and search was initiated for the whereabouts of the missing girl.
5. Shri Ramaram lodged a second written report (Ex. P/16) to the SHO PS Desuri on 09.10.2010 alleging inter alia that his daughter had come to his house for the purpose of her delivery. In addition to the allegations set out in the Missing Person Report No. 10, he also alleged that he came to know in the intervening period that his daughter Smt. Geeta had been offered allurement by the accused-appellant Kheema Ram with the intention of marrying her. He alleged that the accused-appellant had taken away his daughter Smt. Geeta in his maruti car (No. MH 12 P 3529) and that Moolaram, Nainaram and Megharam Choudhary had seen him taking her away. This report was treated to be an FIR and a formal report No. 100/10 (Ex. P/57) was registered at the Police Station Desuri against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 366 IPC. The statements of aforenamed witnesses i.e., namely Moolaram, Nenaram and Megharam Choudhary who claimed to have seen the deceased Smt. Geeta being taken away by the accused appellant in his maruti car and one Ummed Singh were recorded by the IO under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the following order:-
| Sr.No. | Name of witness | Date of recording of Statement |
| 1. | Nenaram | 09.10.2010 |
| 2. | Megharam Choudhary | 09-10-2010 |
| 3. | Moolaram | 12.10.2010 |
| 4. | Ummed Singh | 19.10.2010 |
6. It is alleged that the dead body of an unidentified female was recovered near village Por, PS Varnama District Baroda on 09.10.2010 and the same was subjected to post-mortem and the visceras were forwarded to the FSL Baroda. Shri Ratan Singh (PW. 30) being the SHO PS Desuri claims to have rece
