Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
SANDEEP MEHTA, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, JJ.
Balram Jat – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 215, 276, 513 of 2012
Decided On : 30-07-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : B.S. Rathore, R.K. Bishnoi, Bhagat Dadhich.
For the Respondents: Anil Joshi, J.S. Khinchi.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 r/w 34 - Criminal Trial - Offence of Murder - Appeal against conviction - alleging inter alia that he had four sons, three of whom resided with him, whereas, the fourth, namely Kaluram, had built a separate house, wherein, he was residing with his family - Further alleged that Kaluram used to earn his livelihood by doing farming jobs - His wife was of loose character - She was involved in immoral acts and was also in a habit of soliciting girls from outside village for this purpose - Kaluram was a simpleton and thus, he did not complain to anyone about his wifes improper behavior - Held, PW-1 was prevented from divulging about the incident for genuine reasons - He, thus, implored the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the impugned judgment - Deceased Kaluram had taken the field of Balram on rental basis and was cultivating same - Prime witness of the prosecution is none other than (PW-1), daughter of the deceased Kaluram and the accused Smt. Guddi - The relevant parts of the statement of Sushri Manju, on which the prosecution relies upon are reproduced herein-below for the sake of ready reference - Order accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. The appellants Balram, Omprakash @ Oma and Smt. Guddi have been convicted and sentenced as below by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 15.02.2012 passed in Sessions Case No. 31/2011 (33/2009):-
| Names of the appellants | Offence for which convicted | Sentence awarded |
| Balram Omprakash @ Oma Smt. Guddi | Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 120-B IPC | Imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five months. |
| Section 201 IPC, in the alternative Section 201 read with Section 34 and 120-B IPC | Rigorous imprisonment of seven years alongwith a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month. |
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and the sentences awarded, the appellants have preferred the instant appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
3. Since all the three appeals are directed against a common judgment, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
4. Brief facts, relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals are noted here in below.
5. The complainant Shri Badri Prasad (PW-4) lodged a complaint (Ex.P/1) in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh on 25.07.2006 alleging inter alia that he had four sons, three of whom resided with him, whereas, the fourth, namely Kaluram, had built a separate house, wherein, he was residing with his family. It was further alleged that Kaluram used to earn his livelihood by doing farming jobs. His wife was of loose character. She was involved in immoral acts and was also in a habit of soliciting girls from outside the village for this purpose. Kaluram was a simpleton and thus, he did not complain to anyone about his wife's improper behavior. Kaluram had taken the agricultural field of Balram on a contract basis at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- per annum. Kaluram used to remain at the field during the night for irrigation. In the night intervening 09.07.2006 and 10.07.2006 at about 2 o'clock, Balram, Omprakash Barmeriya and 3-4 other persons, who were in a habit of indulging in immoral acts with Kaluram's wife, were present in his house. Kaluram got a wind of these persons and returned home during night. When he reached his house, an altercation took place between them. Kaluram threatened that he would expose the accused persons, whereupon Smt. Guddi, Balram and Omprakash killed Kaluram and disposed of the dead body. The complainant kept on questioning Smt. Guddi for the whereabouts of Kaluram, but she did not divulge the truth and kept on giving evasive replies that Kaluram had gone out of the village for effecting recovery of money. The complainant, thereafter convened a Panchayat in the village, where, the Panchas namely, Aaduram, Jasveer, complainant and the other persons, questioned the accused Balram, Omprakash and Smt. Guddi, but they did not offer any satisfactory reply. Finally Balram spoke out that the matter should be covered up as whatever had happened could not be undone. The complainant suspected that the accused had indulged in foul play; killed his son Kaluram and had disposed of the dead body. When Kaluram could not be traced out for a significant period of time, the complainant's son Omprakash lodged a missing person report at the police station on 21.07.2006, but no action was taken thereon as well. Thereupon, he filed the complaint before the ACJM Court.
6. The complaint aforesaid was forwarded to the Police Station Hanumangarh Town for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. where FIR No. 397/2006 (Ex.P/51) was registered and investigation was commenced. The investigation was carried
