State of Rajasthan Vs. Magni Ram
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 522 of 1992
With
Crl. M. P. Nos. 4461/92 and 2666/98
With
Crl. M. P. Nos. 4461/92 and 2666/98
Petitioner: State of Rajasthan
Respondent: Magni Ram
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 522 of 1992
With
Crl. M. P. Nos. 4461/92 and 2666/98
With
Crl. M. P. Nos. 4461/92 and 2666/98
Judges: DR. A.S. ANAND, CJI. & R.C. LAHOTI & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 01, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 with Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Murder – Old woman of 70 years accompanied by grandson – Accused alleged to be armed with axe and “jayee” – Blows given first by axe and then, after breaking of handle, with “jayee” – Shrieks attracting another witness nearby – Neither trying to save the lady – Con-duct of grandson in not taking any step, highly unnatural – Conduct of other witness also unnatural and statement contradict-ed by medical evidence – Grandson’s statement about defecating due to fear not corroborated by IO. Held that the evidence does not inspire confidence and they cannot be relied upon. Accused rightly acquitted. (Paras 8 to 10)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. On 2nd October, 1983 in the morning, Smt. Sukhi, aged 70 years, was murdered. Respondent, her adopted son, was tried for offences under Sections 302 and 447 IPC in connection with that murder. The trial court, vide judgment dated 30th June, 1984 convicted the respondent for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. He was also convict-ed for the offence under Section 447 IPC and sentenced to three months’ rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentence of im-prisonment was, however, directed to run concurrently. The re-spondent challenged his conviction and sentence through an appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jodhpur. This appeal by special leave has been filed by the State questioning the order of acquittal.
2. The trial court as well as the High Court took note of the fact that the entire case of the prosecution revolved around eyewitness account given by PW-9 Jetha Ram and PW-11 Gulla Ram, besides the medical evidence provided by PW-12, Dr. Jugal Kishore and recovery of certain other articles from the spot as well as at the instance of the respondent.
3. The substratum of the prosecution case is that on 2nd October, 1983 in the morning when deceased Smt. Sukhi, along with her grandson (daughter’s son) Gulla Ram, PW-11 went to her field for collecting watermelons and after collecting the same, when she was carrying them, respondent arrived there from the eastern side, armed with an axe in one hand and jayee in the other. He started abusing Smt. Sukhi in vulgar language and threatened to kill her as also her grandson PW-11, Gulla Ram. He, thereafter, inflicted an injury with the axe on her head. On receipt of that injury, deceased fell down. The respondent gave another blow to her with the axe when handle of the axe broke. The respondent, thereafter, used the jayee and inflicted injuries on the deceased while she lay on the ground. While causing injuries with jayee, horns of the jayee also broke.
4. On hearing alarm being raised by Gulla Ram, PW-11, Jetha Ram PW-9, who was grazing his cattle in the nearby field on the western side, arrived at the spot, and the respondent ran away. Gulla Ram, PW-11 lodged written report Ext. P-15 at Police Sta-tion Panchori, District Nagaur on 2.10.1983 at about 12.30 p.m. Investigation was taken in hand by the S.H.O. Pagluram, PW-14. After visiting the spot and completing investigation, the respond-ent was sent up for trial, as already noticed.
5. The High Court carefully and critically reappraised the entire evidence on record. Dealing with evidence of eyewitnesses, PW-9, Jetha Ram and PW-11, Gulla Ram, the two ace witnesses of the prosecution, High Court opined :
“We have gone through the statements of these two eyewitnesses and a critical examination of the evidence of these two eyewit-nesses shows that these witnesses are not speaking the truth and they are not reliable witnesses. The testimony of these two witnesses does not find support from the medical evidence. Both these witnesses have stated that the accused inflicted two inju-ries by the axe and 10 to 12 injuries by the jayee while as per PW-12 Dr. Jugal Kishore and as per the postmortem report, the deceased has received five incised injuries and seven injuries by blunt weapons on her person. If the statements of these two witnesses are taken to be true then the deceased should have received only two incised wounds and not five. Even the dimensions of these five injuries, which were caused by sharp-edged weapon, are of two different sizes. According to PW 12 Dr. Jugal Kishore these injuries could be caused by two different weapons as well as by the same weapon. Even regarding the blunt weapon injuries, the doctor is of the opinion that those injuries can be caused by two different wea-pons as well as by one weapon. The nature of the injuries, re-ceived by the deceased, thus, clearly shows that the version given by these two witnesses is not supported by the medical evidence.
6. Our independent examination of evidence on the record shows that appreciation of evidence of these two witnesses, particular-ly in the light of medical evidence furnished by PW-12, Dr. Jugal Kishore by the High Court is proper and not at all faulty.
7. Apart from the reasons given by the High Court, which, in our opinion, are quite sound, we find that there are other reasons also on the basis of which it is not possible to rely upon the testimony of PW-11 Gulla Ram, grandson of the deceased or PW-9 Jetha Ram.
8. It is the prosecution case that Gulla Ram, PW-11 is healthier than the respondent. His conduct, in case he was actually accom-panying his grandmother, is rather unnatural. He saw the respond-ent advancing towards his grandmother with an axe in one hand and a jayee in the other, yet he took no steps to save his grandmoth-er. He did not try to ward off the blows inflicted on the 70 year old woman in any manner whatsoever. He admitted during the cross-examination that he ‘did not cover the body of his grandmother by putting himself over her body’ but went on to explain that he did not do so as he was frightened and had even defecated at that place itself in his own dhoti. He went on to say that he went to the police station in the same state with his dhoti soiled with stool. This explanation, however, appears to be an afterthought and an attempt to improve upon the prosecution case at the stage of trial. PW-14 Pagluram, Investigating Officer, who had gone to the spot after recording First Information Report, not only admitted that at the spot he had found no sign of any stool but went on to concede that when Gulla Ram, PW-11 came to lodge the FIR, he
“had not told that he had (passed) stool and urine at the time of the incident. When Gulla Ram came to me, no bad smell of the stool was coming from his clothes.”
9. The version, about his fright, does not find mention even in Ext. P-15, the First Information Report lodged by Gulla Ram, PW-11. The conduct of Gulla Ram, PW-11 is so unnatural that we find it difficult to place any reliance on him. His natural instinct and normal conduct would have been to take all steps to save his grandmother, particularly when he had been called by her to live with her in her hut and cultivate her land.
10. Jetha Ram, PW-9 was close by. He also took no steps to save the deceased from attack by the respondent. His evidence, as noticed by the High Court, also is in conflict with the medical evidence. Evidence of the two eyewitnesses PW-9 and PW-11 does not inspire confidence and has not impressed us. We, therefore, cannot rely upon their testimony. Evidence of the eyewitnesses not being trustworthy, we need not strain ourselves to consider the effect of the so called recoveries which cannot improve the prosecution case.
11. After giving our careful consideration to the evidence on record and the reasons given by the High Court, we are of the opinion that it is not possible to say that the view taken by the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not a possible view, let alone it being perverse or unreasonable. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal as recorded by the High Court. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. The respondent is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged.
1. On 2nd October, 1983 in the morning, Smt. Sukhi, aged 70 years, was murdered. Respondent, her adopted son, was tried for offences under Sections 302 and 447 IPC in connection with that murder. The trial court, vide judgment dated 30th June, 1984 convicted the respondent for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. He was also convict-ed for the offence under Section 447 IPC and sentenced to three months’ rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentence of im-prisonment was, however, directed to run concurrently. The re-spondent challenged his conviction and sentence through an appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jodhpur. This appeal by special leave has been filed by the State questioning the order of acquittal.
2. The trial court as well as the High Court took note of the fact that the entire case of the prosecution revolved around eyewitness account given by PW-9 Jetha Ram and PW-11 Gulla Ram, besides the medical evidence provided by PW-12, Dr. Jugal Kishore and recovery of certain other articles from the spot as well as at the instance of the respondent.
3. The substratum of the prosecution case is that on 2nd October, 1983 in the morning when deceased Smt. Sukhi, along with her grandson (daughter’s son) Gulla Ram, PW-11 went to her field for collecting watermelons and after collecting the same, when she was carrying them, respondent arrived there from the eastern side, armed with an axe in one hand and jayee in the other. He started abusing Smt. Sukhi in vulgar language and threatened to kill her as also her grandson PW-11, Gulla Ram. He, thereafter, inflicted an injury with the axe on her head. On receipt of that injury, deceased fell down. The respondent gave another blow to her with the axe when handle of the axe broke. The respondent, thereafter, used the jayee and inflicted injuries on the deceased while she lay on the ground. While causing injuries with jayee, horns of the jayee also broke.
4. On hearing alarm being raised by Gulla Ram, PW-11, Jetha Ram PW-9, who was grazing his cattle in the nearby field on the western side, arrived at the spot, and the respondent ran away. Gulla Ram, PW-11 lodged written report Ext. P-15 at Police Sta-tion Panchori, District Nagaur on 2.10.1983 at about 12.30 p.m. Investigation was taken in hand by the S.H.O. Pagluram, PW-14. After visiting the spot and completing investigation, the respond-ent was sent up for trial, as already noticed.
5. The High Court carefully and critically reappraised the entire evidence on record. Dealing with evidence of eyewitnesses, PW-9, Jetha Ram and PW-11, Gulla Ram, the two ace witnesses of the prosecution, High Court opined :
“We have gone through the statements of these two eyewitnesses and a critical examination of the evidence of these two eyewit-nesses shows that these witnesses are not speaking the truth and they are not reliable witnesses. The testimony of these two witnesses does not find support from the medical evidence. Both these witnesses have stated that the accused inflicted two inju-ries by the axe and 10 to 12 injuries by the jayee while as per PW-12 Dr. Jugal Kishore and as per the postmortem report, the deceased has received five incised injuries and seven injuries by blunt weapons on her person. If the statements of these two witnesses are taken to be true then the deceased should have received only two incised wounds and not five. Even the dimensions of these five injuries, which were caused by sharp-edged weapon, are of two different sizes. According to PW 12 Dr. Jugal Kishore these injuries could be caused by two different weapons as well as by the same weapon. Even regarding the blunt weapon injuries, the doctor is of the opinion that those injuries can be caused by two different wea-pons as well as by one weapon. The nature of the injuries, re-ceived by the deceased, thus, clearly shows that the version given by these two witnesses is not supported by the medical evidence.
6. Our independent examination of evidence on the record shows that appreciation of evidence of these two witnesses, particular-ly in the light of medical evidence furnished by PW-12, Dr. Jugal Kishore by the High Court is proper and not at all faulty.
7. Apart from the reasons given by the High Court, which, in our opinion, are quite sound, we find that there are other reasons also on the basis of which it is not possible to rely upon the testimony of PW-11 Gulla Ram, grandson of the deceased or PW-9 Jetha Ram.
8. It is the prosecution case that Gulla Ram, PW-11 is healthier than the respondent. His conduct, in case he was actually accom-panying his grandmother, is rather unnatural. He saw the respond-ent advancing towards his grandmother with an axe in one hand and a jayee in the other, yet he took no steps to save his grandmoth-er. He did not try to ward off the blows inflicted on the 70 year old woman in any manner whatsoever. He admitted during the cross-examination that he ‘did not cover the body of his grandmother by putting himself over her body’ but went on to explain that he did not do so as he was frightened and had even defecated at that place itself in his own dhoti. He went on to say that he went to the police station in the same state with his dhoti soiled with stool. This explanation, however, appears to be an afterthought and an attempt to improve upon the prosecution case at the stage of trial. PW-14 Pagluram, Investigating Officer, who had gone to the spot after recording First Information Report, not only admitted that at the spot he had found no sign of any stool but went on to concede that when Gulla Ram, PW-11 came to lodge the FIR, he
“had not told that he had (passed) stool and urine at the time of the incident. When Gulla Ram came to me, no bad smell of the stool was coming from his clothes.”
9. The version, about his fright, does not find mention even in Ext. P-15, the First Information Report lodged by Gulla Ram, PW-11. The conduct of Gulla Ram, PW-11 is so unnatural that we find it difficult to place any reliance on him. His natural instinct and normal conduct would have been to take all steps to save his grandmother, particularly when he had been called by her to live with her in her hut and cultivate her land.
10. Jetha Ram, PW-9 was close by. He also took no steps to save the deceased from attack by the respondent. His evidence, as noticed by the High Court, also is in conflict with the medical evidence. Evidence of the two eyewitnesses PW-9 and PW-11 does not inspire confidence and has not impressed us. We, therefore, cannot rely upon their testimony. Evidence of the eyewitnesses not being trustworthy, we need not strain ourselves to consider the effect of the so called recoveries which cannot improve the prosecution case.
11. After giving our careful consideration to the evidence on record and the reasons given by the High Court, we are of the opinion that it is not possible to say that the view taken by the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not a possible view, let alone it being perverse or unreasonable. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of acquittal as recorded by the High Court. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. The respondent is on bail. His bail bond shall stand discharged.
