Allowed

Leela and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC17 Dec 2019CRLA/124/1982

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against a conviction under Section 302 IPC, the High Court examined inconsistencies in prosecution witness testimony, a delayed FIR, lack of medical treatment for the injured, and the decomposed state of the body. Finding the prosecution evidence lacked cogency, the Court acquitted the appellants and set aside the impugned judgment.

What did the court decide?

Regardless of conviction, the appellants are acquitted of the charges, the impugned judgment is set aside, and they are directed to furnish a personal bond before the Registrar.

Leela and Ors. Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 124/1982

¶3

Lila S/o Lakshman, aged 18 yrs.

¶4

Mandu alias Surjeet S/o Chetram, aged 18 yrs.

¶5

By caste Ahir, resident of Sabalpur, P.S. Bansur, Distt. Alwar.

¶6

----Accused Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellants : Mr. Vikas Kabra. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Rekha Madnani, Public Prosecutor.

¶11

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶12

Judgment

¶13

17/12/2019

¶14

Appellants have filed this appeal challenging their conviction and sentence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, Camp Behrod, District Alwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) vide judgment/order dated 26.02.1982.

¶15

Prosecution story, as per the report lodged by complainant, Deena, P.W.1 on 08.07.1979 at 3.30 P.M., in brief, is that on 06.07.1979 he had gone to Alwar for livelihood. On 08.07.1979, in the morning, the complainant was told by Bhagwana and Moola at Alwar that on 06.07.1979, Meda (elder brother of the complainant) was helping Bihari in erecting thatched roof. At about 5.00 P.M., appellants came and inflicted injuries to Meda with sticks. When Meda cried for help, Girdhari,

¶16

(2 of 6)

¶17

[CRLA-124/1982]

¶18

Bheru and Bhagwana came running and saved Meda and made him lie on a cot. At about 7.00 P.M., Meda was going to lodge F.I.R. at Police Station Bansur. On the way, he was attacked by the appellants and their co-accused with sticks. The incident was witnessed by Moola and Murli.

¶19

After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the accused.

¶20

Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 147 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. In order to prove its case during trial, prosecution examined 15 witnesses. After the close of prosecution evidence, appellants when examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.), prayed that they had been falsely involved in this case due to previous enmity.

¶21

The appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.

¶22

Trial Court vide impugned judgment/order dated 26.02.1982, while acquitting the appellants of the charge framed under Section 147 IPC, ordered conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 IPC and acquitted the co-accused of the charges framed against them. Hence, present appeal by the appellants.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. There was unexplained delay of two days in lodging the FIR. In-fact, the eye witnesses had been later introduced by the prosecution after the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 08.07.1979. In case, the alleged eye witnesses had actually witnessed the incident, they would have taken the injured to the hospital for

¶24

(3 of 6) [CRLA-124/1982]

¶25

treatment and would have immediately informed the family members of the deceased with regard to the incident. Moreover, the appellants were aged less than 16 years at the time of incident. It was evident from the arrest memos of the appellants that they were aged about 15 years at the time of incident. However, later overwriting had been done in the arrest memos and the age of the appellants had been interpolated as 18 years. The said fact was evident from a bare perusal of the arrest memos, Exhibit P-15 and Exhibit P-16.

¶26

Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal.

¶27

Present case relates to murder of Meda. Prosecution case rests on eye witness account.

¶28

P.W.14 Dr. Virendra Nigam deposed that on 09.07.1979, he had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Meda. He proved post mortem examination report, Exhibit P-14. Perusal of Exhibit P-14 reveals that the dead body was in a stage of decomposition. Skin was peeled off and there were post mortem bruises at places. Cause of death of the deceased was due to multiple injuries, multiple fractures, haemorrhage and shock, which were ante mortem in nature. Duration of injuries was 24 to 48 hours. It was also opined that the injuries on the person of the deceased were by blunt weapon. Thus, from the post mortem examination report, it is evident that the body of the deceased was in a decomposed condition. Post mortem was conducted on 09.07.1979 at 8.30 A.M.

¶29

Complainant, Deena, while appearing in the witness box as P.W.1 deposed that he had been informed by Moola and Bhagwana with regard to the death of his brother Meda. The said persons had also told him that Meda had been murdered by the

¶30

(4 of 6)

¶31

[CRLA-124/1982]

¶32

accused, who were six in number. Thus, the statement of P.W.1 with regard to involvement of the accused in the crime, is hearsay in nature as it is based on the information given to him by P.W.8 Moola and P.W.11 Bhagwana.

¶33

P.W.2 Sugan, P.W.3 Ghamman, P.W.4 Mangu, P.W.5 Ganpat, P.W. 10 Girdhari and P.W.11 Bhagwana have not supported prosecution case during trial with regard to the involvement of the appellants in the crime.

¶34

P.W.7 Murli deposed that on the day of incident, he was going to his village from his well. Lila, Maliya, Sevla, Dhadsi, Basanta and Surja were armed with sticks and were inflicting injuries to Meda. Meda was lying on the ground. His uncle Moola was walking ahead of him. He along with Moola raised alarm and the accused fled away from the spot. At that time, Meda was lying on the ground and was bleeding. Gallu, son of uncle of Meda, also came there but on seeing Meda, he went away. They had left for their village after leaving Meda at the spot and had narrated the incident to the villagers. The police had reached the spot on the next day.

¶35

P.W.8 Moola had corroborated statement of P.W.7.

¶36

P.W.9 Bihari has deposed that on the day of incident, he

¶37

was erecting thatched roof along with Meda. In the meantime, appellants came to the spot armed with sticks and inflicted injuries to Meda. On hearing his alarm, Girdhari, Sarupa, Bhagwana and Bheru reached the spot. On seeing them, appellants fled away from the spot. Sarupa and Girdhari took Meda to his residence.

¶38

Prosecution case, thus, rests on testimony of P.W.7 Murli, P.W.8 Moola and P.W.9 Bihari. However, statements of the said witnesses fail to inspire confidence. As per P.W.9 Bihari,

¶39

(5 of 6)

¶40

[CRLA-124/1982]

¶41

Meda had been taken to his residence. If that be so, then it is not understandable as to how the body of the deceased was in a stage of decomposition when post mortem examination was conducted. As per P.W.7 Gallu (cousin of Meda), had also reached the spot and had gone to the village after seeing Meda lying in an injured condition. However, Gallu has not been examined as a witness by the prosecution. In case, one of the relative of the deceased had actually seen Meda (since deceased) lying in an injured condition at the spot, he would have taken the injured to the hospital for treatment. In case, P.W.7 Murli, P.W.8 Moola and P.W.9 Bihari had actually witnessed the incident, they would have taken Meda, who was in an injured condition, to the hospital for treatment. However, the said persons did not take the injured Meda to the hospital and the dead body of Meda was found in a decomposed condition when its post mortem examination was conducted by the doctor. As per the post mortem examination report, duration of the injuries on the person of the deceased was 24 to 48 hours. However, there is no medical treatment record of the deceased on record.

¶42

Incident had allegedly occurred on 06.07.1979 in the evening, whereas, complainant had reported the incident to the police on 08.07.1979 at about 3.30 P.M. Thus, it appears that the complaint was lodged by the complainant after dead body of the deceased was recovered and the possibility that the eye witnesses were later introduced by the complainant party to involve the appellants in this case cannot be ruled out as there was previous enmity between the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. gains significance.

¶43

(6 of 6)

¶44

[CRLA-124/1982]

¶45

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned trial court had, thus, erred in ordering conviction of the appellants. It is a settled preposition of law that prosecution is required to prove its case against an accused by leading cogent and convincing evidence beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. An accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. Whenever, a doubt occurs in the prosecution story, benefit of the same has to be extended to the accused. In the present case, appellants are liable to be acquitted by extending them benefit of doubt.

¶46

Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them and the impugned judgment/order dated 26.02.1982 passed by the Trial Court are set aside.

¶47

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., appellants namely Lila son of Lakshman and Mandu alias Surjeet son of Chetram are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.

¶48

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶49

(SABINA),J

¶50

MANOJ NARWANI /1

Leela and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leela and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aam Janata Vs Mr. Shri Avichal Chaturvedi District Collector Dausa

Mr. Ranveer Singh S/O Shri Bhanwar Singh Vs Mr. Sudarshan Sethi

Padam Chand Jain S/O Late Shri Johri Lal Jain Vs Union of India

School of Aeronautics Vs Union of India

Vimal Chaudhary S/O Shri Chuttan Lal Chaudhary Vs Manjeet Singh

Chauth Mal Meena Son of Shri Bhenru Lal Meena Vs Block Development Officer