AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this cr. jail appeal filed by the accused appellant Sultan Ram from Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar, accused appellant is challenging the judgment dated 17.3.2011 passed in Sessions Case No.32/2006 whereby the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and passed sentence for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months RI.
As per brief facts of the case, the FIR no.253/2006 dated 25.4.2006 (Ex.P/20) was registered against the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar on the basis of verbal information given by the accused appellant himself in which following confessional statement was given by the accused appellant with regard to the committing murder of his own wife. The Ex.P/20 reads as under:-
"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
After registration of the FIR, the accused appellant was arrested by the police vide arrest memo at 1.15 pm at village Rangmahal in front of two witnesses Rameshwar and Hemraj. The SHO Police Station, Suratgarh immediately went on spot and prepared site plant (Ex.P/3) and details of site were recorded in Ex.P/3A. The body of the deceased Seema was taken to the hospital. From the place of occurrence, one piece of blood stained pillow was taken in possession vide Ex.P/4. The blood stained soil along with simple soil was also taken in possession and sealed on spot on 25.4.2006. The blood stained cloths (Gaghara and Kurta) of the deceased Seema Devi were taken in possession vide Ex.P/6 and sealed on spot.
After arrest, an information was given by the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 25.04.2006 itself with regard to recovery of one weapon Kassi which is said to be used by him to cause injuries upon his wife. The Kassi was recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P/7 on the same day at 3.45
pm. The condition of the body at the place of occurrence was recorded vide Ex.P/8 and Panchanama of the dead body (Ex.P/9) was also prepared on spot. After post mortem, the body of the deceased was handed over to the father-in-law Arjun Ram of the deceased and to family members of the deceased. The post mortem report (Ex.P/13) was obtained by the SHO for further investigation. The photographs of the dead body and place of occurrence were also taken for the purpose of investigation.
All the articles seized on spot and recovered at the instance of the accused appellant were sent to the FSL for chemical examination. In turn, FSL report (Ex.P/28) dated 27.7.2006 was received and after recording statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of all the witnesses, on completion the investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant Sultan Ram, in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar from where after taking cognizance under Section
302 IPC the case was committed to the court of learned Addl.
District Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar Camp Suratgarh vide order dated 5.7.2006. Later on, the case was transferred to the court of Special Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar, for trial.
On the basis of entire evidence on record, the learned trial court after providing an opportunity of hearing framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused appellant, but the accused appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial. In the trial, statements of 13 prosecution witnesses were recorded in support of prosecution and 28 documents were exhibited during trial.
After recording entire evidence of prosecution, the learned trial court recorded statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which following explanation is given by the accused appellant, which reads as under:
"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
After recording aforesaid statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., an application was filed by the prosecution to take FSL report on record which is received at belated stage. The learned trial court vide its order dated 18.2.2011 took FSL report on record and marked the same as Ex.P/28. The accused appellant was further granted an opportunity to give his explanation with regard to FSL report in which it is stated by the accused appellant that whole proceedings initiated by the police is false and therefore, the said evidence of FSL report cannot be taken into consideration to prove the guilt for the alleged offence. No evidence was produced by the appellant in defence.
The learned trial court finally heard the arguments and convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 17.3.2011 and passed sentence aforesaid.
The instant jail appeal has been filed by the accused appellant to challenge the judgment impugned on various grounds.
Upon written request made by the accused appellant, Mr. TRS Sodha, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to conduct this appeal on behalf of the accused appellant.
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that whole prosecution case, based upon confessional statement of the accused appellant, is false because the FIR bears the signatures of the accused appellant whereas the accused appellant is not literate person, therefore, confessional statement recorded by the SHO is totally false, as such the finding of conviction recorded on the basis of confessional statement is far from the truth. He further submit that it is settled principle of law that no conviction can be based only upon confessional statement. The other circumstantial evidence is must to connect the accused with the
crime. In this case FIR was registered at Police Station, Suratgarh upon the confessional statement of the accused appellant, the Court is situated only 100 to 150 meters away from police station but the statement of the accused appellant were not recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also argued that if confessional statement was made at 6.00 am on 25.4.2006 then why accused appellant was arrested at 1.15 pm and how before arrest the proceedings upon site was completed and the weapon Kassi was recovered on the same day as per information of the accused appellant at 3.45 pm vide recovery memo (Ex.P/7).
Learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention that entire investigation was conducted in the presence of two interested witnesses Rameshwar and Hemraj but both the witnesses turned hostile. According to the investigating officer, the weapon Kassi recovered from the house of the father of accused, was sealed on spot and marked as "E" for the purpose of further investigation but in the FSL report though blood was found upon all the articles except Ghaghara, Kurta and Orna but upon perusal of the photographs it will reveal that the cloths of the deceased were sustained with heavy blood and seized on spot immediately, therefore, it is a case in which whole prosecution story is doubtful.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that except confessional statement of the accused appellant, there is no evidence on record because the witness PW--1 Mani Ram, neighbor of the accused appellant, PW--2 Jagram, PW--3 Rameshwar and PW--4 Hem Raj turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Out of above four witnesses, the witness PW--3 Rameshwar and PW--4 Heam Ram are the witnesses of recovery, but both these witnesses turned hostile, therefore, the recovery of articles including Kassi is doubtful. In the cross-examination the witness PW--4 Hem Raj specifically said from the site police took in possession blood stained piece of pillow, soil and simple soil and cloths of the deceased as well Kassi but not sealed in front of him. Meaning thereby, the weapon Kassi which is said to be recovered from the house of the father of the accused appellant became doubtful because this witness categorically stated in his cross-examination that the weapon Kassi was taken in possession from the site by the police.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that PW-3 Rameshwar is also witness of recovery of all the articles. The said witness categorically stated in cross-examination that neither cloths of the deceased nor Kassi was recovered by the police in his presence, therefore, when recovery of weapon Kassi itself is doubtful then there is no question to hold accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC on the basis of his confessional statement.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant no confessional statement was given by the accused appellant, but the FIR was registered on the basis of confessional statement.
Further it is submitted that if the incident of causing injuries was occurred on spot then obviously blood was to be found upon the cloths of the accused appellant, but in the investigation cloths of the accused appellant were not taken in possession, inspite of the fact that soon after the occurrence in the morning at 6.00 am, accused appellant went to the Police Station Suratgarh but there is no assertion in the FIR that blood was found upon the cloths of the deceased. Therefore, it is a case in which finding of conviction of the accused appellant on the basis of confessional statement is not sustainable in law because whole prosecution story is doubtful.
The appellant who is illiterate person has been falsely implicated in this case without any evidence against him, therefore, the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no strength in the argument of the counsel for the appellant because FIR itself was registered upon oral statement made by him before the SHO Police Station Suratgarh upon that accused appellant put his signature and now he is refuting the evidence of prosecution case which is based upon reliable evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that although four witnesses PW--1 Mani Ram, PW--2 Jag Ram, neighbor of the accused appellant, so also PW--3 Rameshwar and PW--4 Hem Raj, witnesses recovery, turned hostile but the other evidence of recovery of Kassi and FSL report which is duly proved by the investigating officer, loudly speaks that finding of the learned trial court holding the accused appellant guilty for committing offence under Section 302 IPC is perfectly justified.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that on the one hand the accused appellant himself gave information and made confessional statement that he has committed an offence of murder of his own wife and on the other hand he has refuted his confessional statement made before the police, therefore, the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial court based upon sound appreciation of evidence does not require any interference.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it emerges from the record that the FIR (EX.P/20) was registered at Police Station Suratgarh on 25.04.2006 upon the confessional statement of the accused appellant, the entire prosecution case is based upon the testimony of thirteen witnesses.
It is true that two witnesses PW-1 Mani Ram and PW-2 Jagram, neighbour PW.3 Rameshwar, and PW.4 Hemraj close relatives of the accused appellant Sultan Ram, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case but incident was reported by the accused appellant himself in which he has categorically accepted that due to doubt upon character of my wife, Seema, I inflicted injuries upon her body by a sharp edged weapon Kassi and due to those injuries, she died.
After registration of FIR at 6:00 am on 25.04.2006, the investigation was conducted by the SHO PW-12 Narendra Kumar Sharma. The said witness has categorically stated on oath that FIR was registered as per oral information given by the accused appellant Sultan Ram himself on 25.04.2006 at 6:00 am. After registration of FIR, the investigation was commenced in presence of two witnesses and photography of the place of occurrence and dead body was made, the dead body of Seema, wife of the accused appellant was taken to the hospital for post mortem. In the hospital, post mortem was conducted by witness PW-5 Dr. Vinod Sharma at 2:30 pm on 25.04.2006. The dead body was identified by the father-in-law of the accused appellant, Arjun Ram and after examination of the body, the post mortem report (Ex.P/13) was prepared by him. In the post mortem report, PW-5
Dr. Vinod Sharma gave opinion that injury Nos. 1,2 & 3 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
PW-3 Rameshwar and PW-4 Hemraj are the witnesses before whom the investigation was conducted and all the exhibits were prepared. Although both the witnesses turned hostile but categorically stated before the Court that investigation was conducted by the SHO PW.2- Narendra Kumar Sharma.
PW-6 Puran Singh was working as Head Constable and he was in-charge of Malkhana of Police Station Suratgarh where the investigating officer Narendra Kumar Sharma, CI deposited five sealed packets having Mark "A", "B", "C", "D" & "E" and those articles were sent by him through Deva Ram, Constable to the FSL where those articles were examined by the FSL.
PW-7 Jeewan Ram is the brother-in-law of the deceased
Seema. The said witness gave following statement before the Court which reads as under:-
"VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
It is true that in cross examination, there is some contradiction in his statement from the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC but we cannot lose sight of the fact that the accused appellant himself made confession before the SHO Police Station Suratgarh that he has murdered his own wife.
PW-8 Kalu Ram, father of the deceased Seema, has categorically stated before the Court that my daughter's son Subhash came to me and informed that my father used to beat my mother and said that their life is in danger. It is also stated by him that upon receiving information about death of my daughter, I made a phone call to my another son-in-law PW-7 Jeewan Ram at Suratgarh and made inquiry about the incident, my son-in-law informed that the accused appellant Sultan Ram came in the morning on the date of incident and said that I have killed my wife Seema, kindly save me.
In the cross examination, although, number of questions were put to this witness so as to disbelieve the prosecution case, but it cannot be said that any false statement is made by the witness PW-8 Kalu Ram.
PW-9 Subhash is the son of the accused appellant Sultan Ram, who has stated about the conduct of the accused appellant and said that behaviour of accused appellant was very quarrelsome with whole of the family.
PW-10 Devaram stated that I received five sealed packets from Malkhana and after obtaining forwarding letter from the office of Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar, deposited all the articles at FSL, Jodhpur for examination and obtained receipt (Ex.P/15) on 31.05.2006.
PW-11 Tarachand is the photographer who was called by the police on 25.04.2006 at the place of occurrence. The said photographer took photographs of the place of occurrence and dead body which is on record as Ex.P/18 to Ex.P/19.
PW-12 Narendra Kumar Sharma is the Investigating Officer, who has supported the entire investigation conducted by him.
PW-13 Dalpat Singh was working as SHO PS Suratgarh on
27.05.2006. He has further conducted investigation after transferring of the file to him and ultimately filed charge sheet against the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC.
Upon assessment of the entire evidence, we are of the opinion that there is no strength in the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the prosecution has concocted a false story so as to involve the accused appellant guilty for the offence of committing murder of his own wife on the basis of confessional statement.
In our opinion, although, there are some contradictions in the statement of Investigating Officer PW-12 Narendra Kumar Sharma or in the statement of other witnesses but it cannot be said that false case is concocted by the prosecution so as to involve the accused appellant for murder of his own wife. It is also very important to mention here that the cloths of the deceased were recovered vide Ex.P/6 on 25.04.2006 in the hospital after postmortem at 3:30 pm so also Kassi was recovered at 3:45 pm vide Ex.P/7 as per information given by the accused appellant vide Ex.P/22 under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act at 3:00 pm but mere on the dispute of time consumed and distance of place of occurrence, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
It is also one of the important fact that before making confessional statement before the SHO PS Suratgarh, the accused appellant Sultan Ram went to the house of PW-7 Jeewan Ram and made confessional statement before him, therefore, the FIR registered upon the confessional statement of the accused appellant cannot be disbelieved because before giving confessional statement to the police, the accused appellant Sultan Ram went to the house of PW-7 Jeewan Ram and made confession that he has killed his wife Seema. The witness PW.7 Jeewan Ram asked the accused appellant what I can do for him.
In view of the fact that the accused appellant accepted the guilt which is corroborated by witnesses PW-7 Jeewan Ram and PW-8 Kalu Ram, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the trial court so as to held the accused appellant Sultan Ram guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC. The contention of the accused appellant that he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of so called confessional statement which is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, we are of the opinion that there is no strength in the said arguments because before making confessional statement before the police, the accused appellant went to the house of his brother-in-law PW-7 Jeewan Ram and informed that he has killed his wife Seema and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness because there is no enmity in between him and the accused appellant. The son of the accused appellant, PW-9 Subhash also made allegations on oath that the conduct of the accused appellant was so bad with whole of the family members and he used to beat his mother. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellant.
In view of above discussions, there is no merit in this appeal, therefore, is hereby dismissed.