CIVIL APPEAL 85/2000 on 14 November 2002

:: J U D G M E N T ::

D.B. CRIMINAL JAIL APPEAL NO.1047/2002 (Ramesh Chandra Vs. The State of Rajasthan)

D.B. CRIMINAL JAIL APPEAL UNDERSECTION 383 Cr.P.C. AGAINST THEJUDGMENT DATED 14[th]NOVEMBER,2002 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SPECIALJUDGE, SC/ST (PREVENTION OFATRICITIES) CASES, UDAIPUR INSESSIONS CASE NO.85/2000 - STATEVS RAMESH CHANDRA.

DATE OF JUDGMENT

:

14[th] FEBRUARY, 2007

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.N.MATHURHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

Mr. Niranjan Singh, Amicus Curiae for the appellant.Mr. JPS Choudhary, Public Prosecutor.

BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MR. MATHUR,J.)

1. The appellant Ramesh Chandra was put to trial for thecharge of murder of his own father Keshu Lal. The learnedSpecial Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipurby judgment dated 14.11.2002 having found the chargesproved, convicted the appellant of offence under Section 302 IPCand sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine ofRs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

2. The prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is that on7.8.2000, a telephonic message was received from anunanimous person at Police Station Gogunda at about 11.30a.m. to the effect that Ramesh Chandra Joshi has killed hisfather Keshu Lal Joshi. Receiving the information, PW-11 KundanSingh reached on the spot, where PW-2 Shyam Lal gave him anoral report stating inter alia that at about 9 a.m., he reached at aplace known as Mahudi for grazing cattle. Deceased Keshu Lalwith a tiffin and kulhari also arrived. On usual interaction, heexpressed that he would not be cutting timber but collect somesticks for fuel. After about half an hour, he along with cattlereached near the tamarind tree. He found appellant RameshChandra near the tamarind tree. He was carrying kulhari in hishand. He could see the edges of the kulhari stained with blood.On enquiry, he exclaimed that he would do or die. He alsostated that he was going to the Police Station. Appellant RameshChandra proceeded towards village Palasama. He found theconduct of appellant unusual. However, when he reached nearthe tamarind tree, he found Keshu Lal lying injured. He wasfluttering.There was profused bleeding from the injuries on hisbody. At that time, PW-4 Chaman Lal and PW-13 Ganesh Lalwho were also grazing cattle in the field arrived. They arranged a jeep for taking Keshu Lal to the hospital at Udaipur. Keshu Lalsuccumbed to the injuries on the way at about 10.30 a.m. Onthis information, police registered a case of offence underSection 302 IPC and proceeded with the investigation.

3. The appellant pleaded not guilty of the charges levelledagainst him and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of itscase adduced oral and documentary evidence. The appellant inhis statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the correctnessof the prosecution evidence appearing against him. The learnedtrial court having found the prosecution case proved, convictedand sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above.

4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties,we have perused and critically scrutinized the evidence onrecord. In the absence of ocular evidence, the case rests oncircumstantial evidence. The prosecution has relied uponfollowing piece of circumstances:-

(1) The appellant was seen near thedead body with a blood stained kulhari;

(2) Extra Judicial Confession of theappellant before PW-3 Bhanwari Bai;

(3) Recovery of blood stained kulhari;

(4) Presence of human blood on the shirtof the appellant.

5. The law relating to the circumstantial evidence has beenstated by the Court in numerous decisions. It is needless torefer them as the law on the point is well settled. Before weproceed to deal with each piece of circumstances, it may bestated that the learned counsel for the appellant has notdisputed the fact that deceased met with the homicidal death.PW-14 Dr. Ramavatar Saini conducted autopsy on the dead bodyof Keshu Lal vide Ex.P-22. He noticed the following injuries onhis person:-

1. Incised (chop) wound on left side offace extending from;- below left eye tooccipital region 13 cm x 3 x 6 cm.

2. Incised wound 2 x ½ cm Rt. Frontalregion.

3. Incised – 2 x 2 cm at Rt eye eye brow.

4. Incised 3 x 1 x 1 cm below injury no. 1horizontal.

5. Incised w. 3 x 1 x ½ on chin left side.

6. Abrasion 4 x 2 cm left shoulder postside.

In his opinion, the cause of death was head injury –

sudden brain death and hypothetemic shock due to excessiveblood from neck vessels on left side.

6. As far as the first circumstance is concerned, theprosecution in order to establish the same has produced PW-2Shyam Lal, PW-4 Chaman Lal, PW-13 Ganesh Lal and PW-5Sohan Lal. The First Information Report has been registered onthe basis of the statement of PW-2 Shyam Lal. He has reiteratedthe same before the court. Thus, we do not consider itexpedient to restate his statement. Suffice it to say that nothinghas been elicited to discredit the testimony of this witness. PW-4Chaman Lal has not supported the prosecution case, as such, hewas declared hostile. PW-13 Ganesh Lal stated that he had goneto the field for grazing cattle. On the way, he met with Ramesh.On seeing him, Ramesh tried to conceal himself. He proceededto a distance and found deceased Keshu Lal fluttering under thetamarind tree. A jeep was arranged to send him to the hospital.PW-5 Sohan Lal is the younger brother of the deceased KeshuLal. He has stated that on the date of incident, he had gone toGogunda. While he was returning in the jeep, he came to knowabout the incident. He was told that his brother Keshu Lal wasbeing killed by his nephew Ramesh. The incident was narratedto him by PW-2 Shyam Lal. Thus, from the statement of PW-2Shyam Lal, it is evident that appellant Ramesh Chandra was seen near the dead body of deceased Keshu Lal armed withkulhari, stained with human blood. The prosecution hassucceeded in establishing this piece of circumstance, which is ofconclusive nature.

7. As regards the second piece of circumstance, PW-3Bhanwari Bai, who is the wife of deceased and mother ofappellant has stated that appellant Ramesh Chandra left thehouse at about 7.00 a.m. for grazing the cattle. Her husbandKeshu Lal also left the house at about 8.00 a.m. for grazing thecattle. At about 9.00 a.m., his son returned to the house. Hestated that he had killed her husband. She questioned him forthe conduct, on which he retorted that he was being assaultedby his father, thus, he has settled the score with him. AppellantRamesh Chandra was carrying a blood stained kulhari with him.She also stated that there were blood stains on the clothes ofappellant Ramesh Chandra. There is a lengthy cross examinationentirely concentrated on the object of the appellant forcommitting the murder of her husband. She has not been ableto give any specific reasons for the murder. As far as the law forextra judicial confession is concerned, it is well settled that therehas to be consistency in the statement with respect to exactlythe words uttered by the accused. Ordinarily, it is a matter ofprudence and ordinary course of human conduct, that a person is attempted to make extra judicial confession to a person inwhich he reposed confidence or hold some authority to convincehimself that he will be helpful instrument to save him. In theinstant case, the exact words in which the extra judicialconfession is said to have been made are extracted as follows:- “रम श न म झ कह थ । कक त र पतत क म गटट करक आय ह��।म न रम श स कह थ कक ऐ र गस त न ऐस कय ककय म र पतत क कय म र थ । रम श क प सख न स भर ह ई क लह ड थ$। रम श क शर र पर प नटऔर ब शट( पहन ह य थ । प नट ब शट( पर ख न क ल लधबब लग रह थ ।"

8. On careful consideration of the entire matter, we are of theview that the prosecution has succeed in establishing the secondpiece of circumstance as well , which is of conclusive nature.

9. As regards the third piece of circumstance, it is stated byPW-11 Kundan Singh Jhala that the appellant while in custodygave an information vide Ex.P-21 relating to the recovery ofblood stained kulhari vide Ex.P-8. The kulhari was sealed andpacked in the presence of motbirs on the spot. It was sent tothe FSL. It is not necessary to deal with the link evidence as thesame has not been challenged. As per the FSL, the kulhari wasfound to be stained with human blood of 'B' group. It may be stated that the clothes of the deceased were also seized byEx.P-4. They were also sent to the FSL for analysis. As per theFSL report, the blood group on the clothes of the deceased aswell as on the kulhari were of the same group. The appellanthas failed to give any explanation as to the presence of humanblood on the kulhari recovered from his possession. Thus, theprosecution has succeed in establishing the third piece ofcircumstance as well, which is of conclusive nature.

10. As regards the fourth piece of circumstance, the appellantwas found wearing shirt stained with blood at the time of arrest.The said shirt was recovered vide Ex.P-7. It was sealed andpacked on the spot. It was sent to the FSL. As per the FSLreport, the blood stains on the shirt were found to be of humanorigin. On grouping, the blood stains on the shirt were found tobe of 'B' group. It may be stated that the blood stains found onthe clothes of the deceased as well as on the kulhari were also ofthe same group i.e. 'B' group.

11. Thus, taking into consideration all the circumstancestogether, it forms a link leading to the irresistible conclusion thatit could be none else but appellant Ramesh Chandra whocommitted the murder of his father Keshu Lal. The learned trialcourt has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant on the

charge of murder of his father Keshu Lal. No interference iswarranted by this Court with the judgment of the learned trialcourt.

12. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit standsdismissed. Appellant Ramesh Chandra is in jail. He will serveout the remaining part of the sentence.

(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. (N.N.MATHUR), J.

ms rathore