Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)
DIVISION BENCH
Goverdhan Bardhar, Manoj Kumar Vyas, JJ.
CHET RAM AND OTHERS — Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PP — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 949/2015
Decided on : 25-08-2020
Counsel for Appearing Parties
Mr. D.G. Chaturvedi, assisted by Mr. Anurodh Chaturvedi, for the Appellant; Mr. N.S. Gurjar, PP, for the Respondent
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and any contradictions or inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Conviction and sentence for offences u/s 302 and 325 of IPC - Challenge - Allowable.
Fact of the Case:
Accused appellants Chet Ram and Shiv Ram were convicted and sentenced for offences u/s 302 and 325 of IPC, respectively, for the murder of Churaman and causing injuries to Rohit. The appellants challenged the conviction and sentence on the grounds of insufficient evidence, contradictions in prosecution evidence, and unreliable medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution evidence was inconsistent and unreliable. The eye-witnesses turned hostile and resiled from their police statements. The medical evidence contradicted the ocular evidence, with doctors stating that the fatal injury could not have been caused by the weapon allegedly used by the appellants. The recovery of the weapon of assault was also doubtful, as it was made after a delay of three months and the attesting witnesses turned hostile. The court also noted the delay in recording the statements of the eye-witnesses and the failure to produce clinical notes and examine the treating doctor in the case of the injured Rohit.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether there were material contradictions in the prosecution evidence. 3. Whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The ocular evidence was not consistent and inspiring, and there was a contradiction between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. The recovery of the weapon of assault was doubtful, and there were other major contradictions in the prosecution evidence. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants were set aside. Accused appellant Chet Ram was ordered to be released forthwith, and accused appellant Shiv Ram's bail bond was cancelled, and sureties were discharged.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Vyas, J. - This appeal has been filed under Section 374 of CrPC assailing the judgment dated 09.09.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.l, Bayana District Bharatpur, in Session Case Nos. 26/2014 (03/2014), whereby appellant Chet Ram has been held guilty for offence u/s 302 of IPC and sentenced life imprisonment with a fine Rs. 10,000/- in default whereof, further to undergo one year simple imprisonment and appellant Shiv Ram has been held guilty for offence u/s 325 of IPC and sentenced seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default whereof, further to undergo one year simple imprisonment.
2. Briefly stated, according to the facts of the case, written report Exhibit-P. 1 was submitted on 24.09.2013 in Police Station Bhusawar District Bharatpur by complainant Girdhari Lal son of Ram Phool. Complainant stated in the report that in the evening of 23.09.2013 at around 07:00, Churaman had gone to the house of Chet Ram, where a quarrel ensued between them. Chet Ram assaulted Churaman causing injuries as a result of which Churaman succumbed to those injuries while he was being taken to the hospital. He further mentioned that detailed information regarding the incident can be given by wife of deceased Churaman and his children.
3. On the basis of this written report Exhibit-P. 1, FIR Exhibit-P.33 was registered under Section 302 of IPC and investigation was commenced. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in learned trial court against the accused appellants, which was committed to the court of sessions. The matter was transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No.l, Bayana District Bharatpur for trial. Charges were framed against accused appellants under Section 302 in alternative 302/34 of IPC, 304 in alternative 304/34 of IPC, 307 in the alternative 307/34 of IPC, 325 in the alternative 325/34 of IPC.
4. The accused appellants denied charges and claimed trial. Prosecution got examined as many as twenty-three witnesses and produced documentary evidence Exhibits-P. 1 to P.27. Thereafter accused appellants were examined under Section 313 of CrPC, in which they pleaded that they have been falsely implicated due to enmity and deceased Churaman was a habitual drunkard. On the fateful day, he was highly intoxicated and due to intoxication he fell upon stones and got injured. Serious injuries were caused on his head due to this fall and he died. Total five witnesses were examined for defence.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court passed the impugned judgment whereby accused Chet Ram was convicted under Section 302 of IPC and accused Shiv Ram was convicted under Section 325 of IPC. They were acquitted of rest of the charges and sentenced as indicated hereinbefore.
6. Aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and sentence, this appeal has been preferred.
7. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that learned trial court has committed error by convicting and sentencing the accused appellants without any sufficient evidence. Learned trial court has also ignored grave contradictions, which have appeared in the prosecution evidence. Injury report of Rohit was prepared on 23.12.2013, after a lapse of three months as the alleged occurrence took place on 23.09.2013. In the FIR it is not mentioned that any of the injuries found during postmortem examination was inflicted by accused appellant Chet Ram. PW.1 Girdhari Lal was declared hostile and did not support the prosecution story. Other important witnesses have also turned hostile including material eye-witnesses of the incident. Even mother of the deceased Churaman, PW.9 Jalbai, has turned hostile and has deposed that Churaman was addicted to alcohol and he fell down. She also deposed that Churaman inflicted sword blowon her, as a result she sustained injuries. She further stated that Churaman expired as a result of the fall. She has specifically said that no injury was caused to deceased by appellants nor an
