Dismissed

Ratan Lal v. State

Rajasthan HC4 Apr 2019CRLA/225/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed this criminal appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC and Arms Act. Upholding trial court judgment, court held that prosecution witness testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and Section 27 recovery of bloodstained clothes matching deceased blood groups, despite contradictions in testimony.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; trial court judgment dated 05/01/2012 upheld; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Ratan Lal Vs State — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 225/2012

¶3

Ratan Lal S/o Ramchandra, B/c Salvi, R/o Goda Ji Ka Gaon, Police Station Bhim, District Rajsamand (Raj.) (Presently lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.

¶7

----Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sangram Singh For Respondent : Mr. N.S. Bhati, PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶9

Judgment

¶10

Per Hon’ble Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.

¶11

04/04/2019

¶12

The present jail appeal was listed on 07/03/2019 before this Court and Mr. Sangram Singh, Advocate was appointed as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the accusedappellant.

¶13

The jail appeal aforesaid has been preferred by the appellant Ratan Lal against the judgment dated 05/01/2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.5/2010, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced

¶14

as under :-

¶15

Offence	Sentence	Fine	In default
302 IPC	Life Imprisonment	5,000/-	3 months’ S.I.
4/25 Arms Act	1 Year S.I.	1,000/-	15 days’ S.I.

¶16

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶17

(2 of 9)

¶18

[CRLA-225/2012]

¶19

The prosecution story emanates from a written report (Ex.P.3) filed by PW.3 Gopal Singh stating therein that he was a driver of Taxi No. R.J.36 TA 0197 whose owner is Mahendra Singh. He used to ply this taxi in service from Bhim to Tatgarh and Bhim to Beawar. On 15/12/2009, while he was going from Bhim to Tatgarh at around 7:00 p.m. in the evening, there were about seven-eight passengers in his Taxi. The passengers were Khoom Singh Fauji, Ratan Lal, Balveer Singh (P.T.I.), Banna Singh, Nenu Singh, Govind Singh and there were two-three more passengers whose names were not known to him. Banna Singh and Nenu Singh were in an inebriated condition and were having heated altercations with Ratan Lal. Ratan Lal was also in the drunken state. While all the three persons were fighting, other copassengers told him to stop the vehicle and disembark those persons who were fighting. At around 7.15 p.m., when he stopped the vehicle near Hanuman Temple, all three persons who were fighting, got down from the vehicle and Ratan Lal assaulted Banna Singh and Nenu Singh with a knife. He also got down to rescue Banna Singh and Nenu Singh but Ratan Lal was having a knife in his hand, therefore, he got frightened and returned back to his vehicle and then he started his vehicle for onward journey. Soon thereafter, Nenu Singh ran and climbed the vehicle and got inside. Ratan Lal fled away from the spot with a knife in his hand. Banna Singh was also following them but could not board the vehicle. He disembarked the other passengers and took Nenu Singh along with Khoom Singh to the Police Station. Thereafter, on being asked, he took them to Bhim. After reaching Bhim, he called the owner of the Taxi and took Nenu Singh to the hospital but by the

¶20

(3 of 9)

¶21

[CRLA-225/2012]

¶22

time they reached hospital, Nenu Singh was already dead and Banna Singh also died. Banna Singh and Nenu Singh were murdered by Ratan Lal by inflicting knife blows.

¶23

On the aforesaid report, a formal FIR No.333/2009 (Ex.P/4) was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC at the Police Station Bhim, District Rajsamand.

¶24

After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 302 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act.

¶25

Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C & 4/25 Arms Act to the accused appellant who denied the charge and sought trial.

¶26

During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and 63 documents were exhibited.

¶27

The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial which he denied and stated that after getting down from the vehicle, he went to his village and was not aware of the incident which happened thereafter. He had not murdered anybody. The Police neither recovered the knife nor the bloodstained clothes from him. He alleged that Police had falsely effected the recovery from him by enroping him falsely in this case. He was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.

¶28

Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration and appreciating the documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses, convicted

¶29

(4 of 9) [CRLA-225/2012]

¶30

and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 05/01/2012. Hence this appeal.

¶31

We have heard learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

Shri Sangram Singh, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant has vehemently and fervently argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges alleged against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. He has contended that as per the FSL Report, the weapon of offence i.e. “ Chaku” is having no bloodstains and, therefore, it cannot be said that the knife recovered at the instance of accused-appellant on his information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was the same which was used in the incident.

¶33

He further urges that except PW.3 Gopal Singh, no other witness has supported the prosecution story as it is quite unnatural that nobody has seen the appellant inflicting the knife blows to both of the deceased since there were a number of persons in the vehicle.

¶34

He further contends that even in the statement of PW.3 Gopal Singh, there are material contradictions and omissions and it will not be safe to rely upon the same for convicting the appellant in the case.

¶35

He further contends that there were bloodstains on all the sides of the vehicle. If the incident is claimed to have happened after they had stepped down from the vehicle then there was no question of bloodstains having been found on all the sides of the vehicle.

¶36

(5 of 9)

¶37

[CRLA-225/2012]

¶38

On the strength of the submissions made above, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant has prayed that the present appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted of the charges levelled against him by setting aside the judgment dated 05/01/2012 passed by learned trial Court.

¶39

Per contra, learned public prosecutor has stated that the statement of PW.3 Gopal Singh is clear wherein he has narrated the entire story and categorically named the present appellant Ratan Lal who inflicted the fatal blows to the deceased Banna Singh and Nenu Singh. The fact that the appellant and the deceased persons were in the vehicle and were having heated altercations is also fortified from the statements of PW.1 Kheem Singh, PW.4 Govind Singh, PW.5 Rajendra Singh, PW.6 Jeth Singh and PW.8 Balveer Singh. Therefore, the presence of the appellant at the time of incident is proved beyond shadow of doubt. The medical evidence in the shape of statements of PW.13 Dr. Rajendra Sharma and PW.14 Dr. S.R. Gehlot who conducted the autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased Banna Singh and Nenu Singh described the dimensions and places of injuries present on the body of deceased and the cause of death being the excessive bleeding due to the injuries suffered by them. Further the postmortem reports (Ex.P.33 and Ex.P.34) have also reported the cause of death of Nenu Singh and Banna Singh to be hemorrhagic shock due to long laceration and abdominal injuries. All injuries are influenced by sharp object which are antemortem in nature. On the information supplied by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act qua the weapon of offence

¶40

(6 of 9)

¶41

[CRLA-225/2012]

¶42

i.e. knife and the bloodstained clothes (Ex. P.60), the recoveries of the same were effected vide Ex.P.36.

¶43

On the strength of these arguments, learned public prosecutor submits that the prosecution had been able to prove the charges levelled against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and, therefore, was perfectly justified in convicting the appellant for the offence alleged vide judgment dated 05/01/2012.

¶44

We have considered the submissions made at bar and have examined the record of the trial Court minutely as well as the judgment impugned dated 05/01/2012.

¶45

The star witness of the prosecution PW.3 Gopal Singh stated in his testimony that he was driver and used to ply the Taxi from Tatgarh to Bhim and from Bhim to Beawar. On 15/12/2009 at around 7.15, while he was going from Bhim to Tatgarh with the passengers in his Taxi, Ratan Lal, Nenu Singh and Banna Singh were fighting with each other while sitting in his Taxi. The copassengers told him to disembark them. When he stopped the vehicle, Ratan Lal got down & started inflicting knife blows on Nenu Singh and Banna Singh. He got down to intervene but seeing the knife in the hand of Ratan Lal, he got afraid so he came back to his vehicle and proceeded on his usual route. Nenu Singh climbed the vehicle from the rear side (but Banna Singh remained there). The other co-passengers got disembarked and Ratan Lal fled from the place of incident. He went to the Police Station Tatgarh with Nenu Singh where the owner Mahendra Singh also came and the personnel of police station told them to go to Bhim. Thereafter, he, Nenu Singh and Mahendra Singh proceeded to

¶46

(7 of 9)

¶47

[CRLA-225/2012]

¶48

Bhim. Nenu Singh died on the way. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police Station Bhim at 9 p.m. He also heard that Banna Singh died on the same day. Nothing significant was elicited during the cross-examination of this witness so as to doubt the credibility or veracity of the deposition made by him in the examination-in-chief.

¶49

PW.1 Kheem Singh, PW.4 Govind Singh, PW.5 Rajendra Singh, PW.6 Jeth Singh and PW.8 Balveer Singh stated that they were inside the vehicle. Nenu Singh, Banna Singh and Ratan Lal were fighting with each other and, therefore, they requested the driver of the vehicle to disembark them.

¶50

PW.13 Dr. Rajendra Sharma and PW.14 Dr. S.R. Gehlot who conducted the autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased Nenu Singh and Banna Singh described the dimensions and places of the injuries sustained on the body of deceased. They stated that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to long lacerations and abdominal injuries.

¶51

PW.21 Kushal Chordiya is the Police Officer who investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, he recorded statements of witnesses, collected samples & prepared memos in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶52

Postmortem reports are Ex.P.33 and Ex.P.34 wherein the cause death of deceased Nenu Singh and Banna Singh was opined to be hemorrhagic shock due to long laceration and abdominal injuries. The information supplied by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act qua the weapon of offence i.e.

¶53

knife and the bloodstained clothes are Ex. P.60, pursuant whereupon recoveries of the same were effected vide Ex.P.36.

¶54

(8 of 9) [CRLA-225/2012]

¶55

FSL Report is Ex.P.61 wherein the packet ‘I’ in which the bloodstained clothes (Pent and Shirt of the accused) were sealed for sending the same to the FSL has reported that blood group ‘O’ and ‘A’ are present on the pent and shirt of the accused matching the same with the blood groups of deceased Nenu Singh and Banna Singh. However, no bloodstains are reported to be matched on the weapon of offence with that of the deceased.

¶56

The testimony of Gopal Singh is worth credence and has been supported by other witnesses to the extent that he was the driver of the vehicle on that day and the appellant and deceased persons were also present in the vehicle. Gopal Singh has narrated the entire incident and clearly mentions that the appellant inflicted knife blows to Banna Singh and Nenu Singh. His statement receives thorough corroboration from the medical evidence and the recoveries of bloodstained clothes. PW.13 Dr. Rajendra Sharma and PW.14 Dr. S.R. Gehlot have stated that the cause of death is injuries sustained by the deceased persons due to the sharp-edged weapon and resulting into excessive loss of blood. The recovery of bloodstained clothes of the appellant on the information supplied by him under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and the blood groups of the deceased persons found on the clothes of the deceased persons tallied with the bloodstains found on the clothes of the accused-appellant completely fortifies the prosecution story and in no manner of doubt leaves any room that it was none other than the appellant who was involved in the commission of the offences alleged against him. Therefore, we are of the view that minor deviations in the statements of PW.3 Gopal Singh will not vitiate the entire evidence

¶57

(9 of 9) [CRLA-225/2012]

¶58

brought on record by the prosecution. Further, the presence of the bloodstains on the vehicle is liable to be found as Nenu Singh climbed the vehicle from behind and was taken in the same vehicle from Tatgarh to Bhim and, therefore, the presence of bloodstains on the vehicle is very well explained which creates no doubt in the prosecution story. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the testimony of PW.3 Gopal Singh on the ground that other witnesses have not claimed to have seen the appellant inflicting the fatal injuries. However, we note that the other witnesses have very much stated the presence of the appellant as well as the deceased persons in the vehicle fighting with each other. Therefore, the statement of the appellant that he was not present on the date of incident is falsified on the face of record.

¶59

In the wake of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present criminal appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment dated 05/01/2012 passed by trial Court is upheld. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.

¶60

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 4-SanjayS/-

¶61

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

Ratan Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Lal 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

Jiya Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Gitanjali Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Suban Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaswant @ Jasa Ram Vs State

Mamta Vs State of Rajasthan