Harchand Ram vs Chhoturam And Ors

Sandeep Mehta, J

The instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant Harchand Ram for assailing the judgment dated 18.11.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi, District Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.18/2016 (CIS No.17/2016), titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Chhotu Ram whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted from the charges under Sections 302 and 376 IPC.

The appeal is delayed by 70 days and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condoning the delay.

We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel Shri Suthar on the application for condonation of delay as well as on merits.

Firstly, we proceed to consider the merits of the case. The FIR of the incident dated 21.11.2015 came to be lodged by the appellant-complainant Harchand Ram on 25.11.2015 at the Police Station Baap, alleging inter alia that on 21.11.2015 at about 9:00 p.m., some unknown persons called his sister-in-law Muli Devi on her mobile phone and soon thereafter, she went out of the house without informing the family members. The family members tried to trace her whereabouts in the neighbourhood, but could not succeed. On 24.11.2015, on the information of a villager, they came to know about 6 O'clock in the evening that the dead body of Muli Devi with numerous marks of violence was lying in a trench near the Lakhasar Talab. The complainant expressed in the report that his sister-in-law had been killed by the unknown assailants after subjecting her to gang rape.

On the basis of the aforesaid report, an FIR No.233/2015 came to be registered at the Police Station Baap for the offences under Sections 376 and 302 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellant Chhotu Ram for the offences mentioned above. As the case was sessions triable, the same was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi for trial, who framed charges against the accused for these offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 34 documents. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, the accused denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated.

It may be stated here that the prosecution portrayed the circumstances of motive and recoveries to prove its case as against the accused-appellant. At the trial, the prosecution witness tried to establish that the last call which had been received on the mobile phone of the deceased was that of the accused-appellant. However, the corresponding call detail records were not proved. The prosecution also tried to establish that the accused was seen taking the deceased away on his motorcycle on 21.11.2015, at about 7:30 p.m. However, the trial Court found that this allegation was totally false as PW-8 Meera Devi, the mother-in-law of deceased as well as her daughter Pushpa PW-7, both stated that the deceased went away from the house without telling anyone.

Thus, in our opinion, the trial court held and rightly so that there was no material on record to prove that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused.

Regarding the call details, the trial court after appreciating the evidence found that the two Sims which were allegedly in use of the deceased were not operative on the day of the incident. No proof was provided by the prosecution to establish the identity of the mobile Sims which were allegedly used by the accused to converse with the deceased.

Another circumstance which the prosecution portrayed against the accused was that of abscondence. In this regard, the trial court found that the incident took place on 21.11.2015; the FIR came to be lodged on 25.11.2015 and the accused was arrested on 27.11.2015 and hence there was nothing to satisfy that the accused absconded from the village after the incident.

The prosecution also tried to establish that the ornaments belonging to the deceased i.e. 'Kadiya' and 'Madaliya' were recovered at the instance of the accused. However, this fact was found not proved, because no evidence was led by the prosecution to establish that the recovered ornaments were deposited in the Malkhana of the police station or that the same were got identified by the family members of the deceased.

Meera Devi PW-8 and Ghyanshyam PW-10, the mother-in-law and son of the deceased respectively stated in their evidence that all the ornaments worn by the deceased were removed from her dead body and were retained by the police. The same facts were stated by Dr.Ramniwas Sevar PW-11.

We are of the firm view that in view of the glaring facts noted above, the trial court was absolutely justified in discarding the recoveries allegedly made at the instance of the accused.

Having appreciated the arguments advanced by learned counsel Shri Suthar and after going through the impugned judgment, we are of the opinion that in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution failed to bring home even a single circumstance so as to raise strong suspicion what to talk of proof beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellant.

As a consequence, the trial court was absolutely justified in acquitting the accused-appellant from the charges. The impugned judgment dated 18.11.2017 is based on a thorough and apropos appreciation of the evidence available on record and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity whatsoever warranting interference therein.

As an upshot of the above discussion, we find no merit in this victim's appeal, which is dismissed as being delayed and so also on merits.