Jayphal Ram @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

By way of the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,the complainant petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 07.07.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in revision affirming the order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer whereby, the negative Final Report No.06/2011 submitted by the I.O. of Police Station Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer after investigation of FIR No.84/2010 was accepted.

The petitioner has approached this Court through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the above orders and seeking a direction that cognizance should be taken against the respondents Nos.2 to 9 herein for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

Facts in brief are that the petitioner is the father of Shivdan Ram (the deceased), who was a painter by profession. It is alleged that on 27.06.2010, the respondent Praga Ram’s daughter was to be married at the village Kabir Basti. Praga Ram’s nephew was to be married on 21.06.2010 and thus, the guests had already arrived to participate in both the weddings. The petitioner’s son Shivdan Ram was called alongwith another painter Sona Ram to paint the pictures of Lord Ganesh and Kalash, etc at the house of Praga Ram. On 23.06.2010, Shivdan Ram and Sonaram were carrying on the painting activity. At that time, Dalla Ram’s wife Madhmo started talking with both the painters. Dalla Ram became enraged on seeing his wife talking to other men and reprimanded her on which, she went away. Dinner and celebrations, followed till about 1 o ‘clock’ in the night.

The complainant’s son Shivdan Ram, Sonram, Ashok, Praga Ram, Punmaram and their relatives participated in the dance and festivities. Dalla Ram’s wife Madhmo also took part in the dance and came close to Shivdan during this process, on which, Dalla Ram became enraged and beat her up. Shivdan Ram was thrashed and was threatened that he would not see the light of the day. At that time, Sanwala Ram was also present who, also hurled insinuations towards Shivdan Ram. Both these persons stopped the celebrations. As per the complainant, Dalla Ram and Sanwalram, conspired together with Kabir Ram, Punma Ram, Praga Ram, Girdhari Ram, Genaram and Laluram and his son Shivdan Ram was killed and his body was thrown on the terrace of Kabir Ram’s house in order to take revenge regarding the earlier incidents, involving Smt. Madhmo. Ashok and one more person were sleeping on the said terrace. Dalla Ram went away to the village Badodagaon before sunrise. Shivdan Ram’s motorcycle’s tyres were deflated so as to cut off his escape route. On 24.06.2010, Sonaram informed the complainant that his son Shivdan Ram was lying on roof of Kabira Ram’s house in an unconscious condition and efforts to revive him had failed. On this, the complainant accompanied with Fata Ram and Khamana Ram, reached the scene of occurrence in the village Kabir Basti and saw that his son Shivdan Ram was unconscious and his pulse was not perceptible. The complainant boarded his son on to a vehicle and took him to Dr. Solanki of Jaisalmer who declared Shivdan Ram dead. On this, they returned to village Sonu with the deadbody. When the deadbody was washed before cremation, Baburam and Dalpat Ram noticed signs of injury and bleeds on various body parts of Shivdan Ram. However, these persons could not apprise the complainant of these marks of violence and Shivdan Ram’s deadbody was given the customary burial. After twelve days mourning period had come to an end, the complainant made detailed inquiries and came to know from Sonaram and Ashok that Dalla Ram and Sanwala Ram had conspired to kill his son and Rudraksh beads and a locket worn by the deceased in his neck and his vest were also taken away. The complainant alleged that his son was hale and hearty young man and was dancing with ferver in the marriage celebrations and could not have expired. Sonaram and Ashok allegedly saw Genaram and Kabir Ram putting clothes on Shivdan Ram’s body and when they sought an explanation, they panicked and did not offer any reply. The complainant alleged that two days prior to lodging of the report (which came to be filed on 11.07.2010 before the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer), Dalla Ram and Sanwla Ram confessed before Baburam that they had killed Shivdan Ram and he could do anything he desire. After collecting these facts, the complainant approached the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer on 11.07.2010 and submitted a complaint to him. The Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer directed registration of the case whereupon, FIR No.84/2010 was lodged at the Police Station Mohangarh. The I.O., after conducting investigation, submitted a negative final report with a conclusion that the death of Shivdan Ram occurred in the natural course and was not homicidal. Upon receiving notice of the negative final report, the complainant submitted a protest petition and got recorded his own and the statements of Ashok, Baburam, Dallaram and Fata Ram under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively.

The learned Magistrate, after hearing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and after appreciating the entire material available on record, proceeded to pass a detailed order dated 18.09.2012 running into 11 pages; rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner and accepted the negative final report. The petitioner challenged the said order passed by the learned Magistrate by filing a revision which stands rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer by order dated 07.07.2015. These two orders are challenged in the instant misc. petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner complainant Jayphal Ram under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Shri Rahul Choudhary, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that the learned courts below have committed grave error in facts as well as in law while discarding the petitioner’s case. He fervently contended that evidence of the witnesses Ashok Kumar, Baburam, Dalpat Ram and Fata Ram is convincing enough so as to give rise to a strong inference that Shivdan Ram was murdered by the accused persons. He further submitted that delay in lodging the FIR is thoroughly explained inasmuch as, the complainant was earlier not aware of the significant suspicious circumstances surrounding Shivdan’s death which came to his knowledge at a later stage when the witnesses divulged before him that the body of Shivdan Ram was covered by bruises and other marks of injuries, etc. Furthermore, two of the accused namely Dallaram and Sanwla Ram made extra-judicial confession before the witnesses that they had killed Shivdan Ram and as such, Shri Choudhary implored the Court to quash and set aside the impugned orders and direct that cognizance be taken against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 379 and 120B IPC.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel Shri K.L. Chouhan representing the accused respondents vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. Shri Chouhan urged that there was no reason for the complainant not to have reported the matter to the police immediately after the incident. The complainant and the other family members gave a peaceful burial to the deadbody of Shivdan

Ram. Before the burial, the body was washed and had the witnesses noticed the bruises/injury marks on the deadbody, then they would have raised a hue and cry right then and there. He urged that as a matter of fact, the deceased died because of excessive consumption of liquor and the case set up by the complainant regarding the accused having assaulted and killed the deceased is absolutely conjectural and concocted. He further contended that the so-called motive for the incident attributed by the complainant to the accused party in the belated FIR that Shivdan Ram tried to get close to Madhmo wife of Dalla ram and that the assault was by way of revenge is absolutely cooked up because the lady did not support this theory when examined during investigation. On these grounds, he craved rejection of the misc. petition.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned orders as well as material available on record.

Suffice it to say that the theory set up in the belated FIR regarding injuries being noticed on the deadbody of the deceased when the same was given a bath before burial appears to be totally concocted and fictional. Had there been an iota of truth in this allegation then, the complainant was bound to be apprised of this significant circumstance and he would have taken immediate action thereupon. There was no occasion for the complainant to have kept silent in such an eventuality. The fact that the body was buried without any protest whatsoever and without getting postmortem carried out gives rise to a definite inference that there existed no suspicious circumstance surrounding the death of Shivdan Ram. That apart, the body was belatedly exhumed and was subjected to postmortem at the request of the complainant. Manifestly, no signs of violence would have remained at that stage looking to the time elapsed between the death and the postmortem. However, the viscera tested negative for poisonous substance, etc. The motive attributed to the accused for perpetrating the incident was also not substantiated during investigation because the lady Madhmo who was alleged to be a root cause of the incident did not support the prosecution theory regarding Shivdan Ram had talked to her and her husband reacted violently to such incident.

In view of the discussion made herein above, this Court is of the firm opinion that the material available on record does not inspire confidence and does not give rise to even feints suspicion that Shivdan Ram’s death was homicidal. Rather, his death appears to have occurred in the natural course of events and that is why, his body was buried without raising any protest whatsoever. The two courts below made a detailed discussion of the material available on record and have arrived at concurrent findings of facts that the circumstances do not warrant prosecution of the respondents for the offences alleged. These findings cannot be termed as arbitrary or baseless.

In view of the fact that two courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts after thorough, just and proper appreciation of the material/ evidence available on record, this Court finds no reason so as to interfere therein while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Hence, I find no reason to accept the instant misc. petition which is hereby rejected.

Record be returned to the trial court.