Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
PANKAJ BHANDARI, ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, JJ.
Pappu @ Ramjilal S/o Kishanlal - Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 2019
Decided on : 13-02-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 143, 147 and 302/149 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 319 - Offence of Murder – Rioting – Unlawful assembly – Charged – Appeal against conviction - On this information, he along with constable reached - He issued written direction to doctor for medical treatment - Thereafter, he found that was in condition to give her statement - In presence, he recorded her statement (Parchabayan Ex.P-1) wherein she stated that she is resident of village - At about 11:00 P.M. when she was sleeping came there and dragged her out and told that what her husband is doing and that they are taking possession of their land - Whether Geeta Devi was in a position to give her statement - It is also argued by him that as per dying declaration, kerosene was poured on person of the deceased by appellants, but there was no smell of kerosene present. Para 13
Finding of Court :
Now as far as case of appellant- is concerned Court find that in statement recorded by learned Magistrate (PW15) name of appellant (Vinod) is not appearing and in very clear terms injured has mentioned names of rest of 4 appellants, who were responsible for her injuries - Court are of view that appellant- deserves to be acquitted from the charges levelled against hi In view of fact that appellant is entitled to be acquitted as discussed above, rest of four appellants cannot be convicted for the offences under Sections 147 IPC and Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC but their conviction is liable to be converted from Section 302/149 IPC to Section 302/34 IPC – Court have already discussed, that all 4 appellants actively participated in commission of offence and in dying declaration in very clear terms it was stated by deceased that all 4 persons are responsible for her injuries.
Result : Criminal appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J
1. Appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.07.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bandikui, District Dausa (Rajasthan) (hereinafter referred to as "trial Court") in Sessions case B.T. No.146/2018 (30/2013). By this judgment, learned trial Court convicted them for the offence under Section 147 and 302/149 IPC. For the offence under Section 147 IPC they were sentenced to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, 3 months simple imprisonment was ordered. For the offence under Section 302/149 IPC they were sentenced for imprisonment of life along with fine of Rs.10,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, 6 months simple imprisonment was ordered.
2. Criminal proceedings were set on motion when (PW-1) Rahim Khan received a telephone call on mobile on 09.03.2013 in respect of the fact that, a lady named Geeta Devi has been brought in CHC, Sikrai in burnt condition by her family members. On this information, he along with constable Pooran reached at CHC, Sikrai. He issued written direction to doctor for medical treatment. Thereafter, he found that Geeta Devi was in condition to give her statement. In presence of Dr. Babu Lal, he recorded her statement (Parchabayan Ex.P-1) wherein she stated that she is resident of village Hingwa. At about 11:00 P.M. when she was sleeping, Pappu, Babulal, Vinod, Satyaveer and Ramotar came there and dragged her out and told that what her husband is doing and that they are taking possession of their land. They came with a canister (pipi) filled with some substance about which she had no idea and poured upon her and lit her on fire with a matchbox and afterwards all those persons ran away. Her family members brought her to the hospital. On the basis of this Parchabayan, an FIR No.58/2013 was registered at Police Station Manpur, District Dausa on 10.03.2013 for the offences under Section 143 & 307 IPC. On account of serious condition she was referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur and on 10.3.2013 at about 2:20 A.M. she was admitted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Vide Ex.P-26, a request letter was issued by the SHO Police Station, Manpur to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Jaipur to depute a Judicial Magistrate to record statement of Geeta Devi. On this request, Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jaipur Metro was directed to record the statement according to law. Learned Magistrate on dated 10.03.2013 reached the burn ward of SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Before recording the statement, a certificate was taken from the duty doctor about fitness of mind and doctor certified that Geeta Devi is fit for giving her statement. Thereafter her statement (Ex.P-27) was recorded in question-answer form and was read over to her. She admitted the same as correct and thumb impression of her right hand was put on the statement.
3. Smt. Geeta Devi succumbed to the burn injuries in the hospital on 10.03.2013. On receiving of this information from the Hospital, Shri Surendra Singh (PW-11) conducted the inquest proceedings. On same day at 3:15 P.M. autopsy was conducted and it was opined by the medical expert that cause of death is shock brought about as a result of ante-mortem dry heat flame burn which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
4. On her death, Section 302 IPC was added and finally police filed charge-sheet against 3 accused persons namely Pappu @ Ramjilal, Babulal and Ramotar for the offences under Section 143 & 302 IPC in the court of concerned Magistrate whereas, investigation against appellants-Vinod and Satyaveer was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.PC.
5. On presentation of this charge-sheet, learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Session judge entrusted this case to the trial Court for adjudication.
6. On 25.09.2013 charges were framed against the accused-appellants
Point of Law : If facts to be proved and evidence to be adduced with reference to the charge under S. 149 would be same if charge were under S. 34, then failure to charge accused under S. 34 could no....
Dying declarations can serve as the sole basis for conviction if deemed credible and made in a fit state of mind, as established in this case.
The court affirmed that a dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is credible, voluntary, and made in a fit state of mind.
A dying declaration must be trustworthy and corroborated; significant discrepancies in the statement led to acquittal due to reasonable doubt not established by prosecution.
A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is credible and free from infirmities; however, significant discrepancies and doubts regarding its reliability necessitate caution....
The admissibility of dying declaration and the determination of the appropriate legal provision for the conviction based on the nature of the offence and the actions of the accused.
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
