Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2766
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia and Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.
Manaram And Anr - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 389 of 2015
Decided On : 10-05-2019
Arvind Kumar Gupta, Adv., Anurag Pareek, Adv., Javed Choudhary, Adv., Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Adv., Rajesh Choudhary, Adv.
The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the murder of Ram Kishan.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302/34 IPC - SUMMARY OF FACTS, FINDINGS, ISSUES, RATIO DECIDENDI, AND FINAL DECISION
Fact of the Case:
Manaram and Kartar were convicted for the murder of Ram Kishan, who was run over by a tractor driven by Manaram. The prosecution alleged that the murder was pre-planned and that the accused had a motive to kill Ram Kishan due to previous enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses had exaggerated the version of events and that the medical evidence did not support the claim that Ram Kishan had been run over by the tractor. The court also found that the witnesses had introduced several accused and weapons to the story in order to assign blame for the accident.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the murder of Ram Kishan. 2. Whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution's version of events.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the murder of Ram Kishan. The court found that the eyewitness accounts were unreliable and that the medical evidence did not support the claim that Ram Kishan had been run over by the tractor. The court also found that the witnesses had introduced several accused and weapons to the story in order to assign blame for the accident.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused of the murder of Ram Kishan and convicted Manaram of the lesser offense of causing death by negligence. The court sentenced Manaram to two years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000.
JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - Manaram son of Hari Narayan and Kartar son of Ram Narayan were tried by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, Camp Court Dudu, District Jaipur. The said court vide impugned judgment dated 25.4.2015 convicted both the appellants Manaram and Kartar for offence under Section 302/34 IPC.
2. Having convicted the appellants for the above said offence, the trial Judge vide a separate order of even date sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional three months imprisonment.
3. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
4. In the present case, Chhotu Ram (P.W.1) had presented a written report (Exhibit-P/1) before Banne Singh (P.W.22) who was then Officer on duty at Police Station Dudu. On the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/1), a formal FIR (Exhibit-P/34) bearing No. 393/2011 was registered at Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur for the offences under Sections 143 and 302 IPC.
5. In the written report (Exhibit-P/1) Chhotu Ram (P.W.1) stated that on 28.10.2011 at 3:00 PM, his brother Ram Kishan alongwith his motorcycle was standing behind Lala Hotel on the college road. At that time, Manaram came driving tractor. On the tractor Ram Narayan, Kartar, Chenaram and Hari Narayan were sitting armed with weapons. They in pre-planned manner ran over tractor on his brother Ram Kishan and after Ram Kishan was lying crushed beneath the tractor, they caused injuries with weapons. It was stated by him that murder was committed by hitting Ram Kishan with a tractor and causing injuries with weapons.
6. The prosecution to secure conviction of the appellants, examined twenty two witnesses namely, Chhotu Ram (P.W.1), Sardar (P.W.2), Kana Ram (P.W.3), Lala Ram (P.W.4), Ram Charan (P.W.5), Bharat Singh (P.W.6), Shyoram (P.W.7), Dr. Ajay Gupta (P.W.8), Dr. Mahendra Agrawal (P.W.9), Laxman (P.W.10), Om Prakash (P.W.11), Har Govind (P.W.12), Kamal Kumar (P.W.13), Chaina Ram (P.W.14), Harji Ram (P.W.15), Shyolal (P.W.16), Rajpal Singh (P.W.17), Shrawan (P.W.18), Banshilal Mali (P.W.19), Vijay Sehara (P.W.20), Subhay Singh (P.W.21) and Banne Singh (P.W.22).
7. The case of the prosecution primarily rests upon the ocular version which has emerged in the testimony of Chhotu Ram (P.W.1), Sardar (P.W.2), Kana Ram (P.W.3), Lala Ram (P.W.4), Ram Charan (P.W.5), Chaina Ram (P.W.14) and Harji Ram (P.W.15).
8. Alongwith the evidence of eyewitnesses named above, in the present case medical evidence which has emerged in the testimony of Dr. Ajay Gupta (P.W.8) and Dr. Mahendra Agrawal (P.W.9) assume importance. Before we revert to the ocular version, it will be necessary to notice the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the present case, as a result of consultations and deliberations, witnesses have exaggerated the version. They have introduced numbers of accused and they have also introduced weapons. It is submitted that the witnesses have testified that all the accused when Ram Kishan was lying fallen beneath the tractor caused injuries. It is further submitted that the witnesses have stated that the accused made an effort to run over the tractor upon the deceased in the earlier part of the occurrence and thereafter, he turned the tractor and came rushing towards the deceased.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that if the medical evidence and improbabilities of the prosecution version are taken into consideration, it will be apparent that the witnesses have concocted the version to secure the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It is further submitted that the implicit reliance cannot be placed upon the eyewitness account. It is contended that by introducing occurrence in two parts, an ordinary case of accide
