Dismissed

Jaswant @ Jasa Ram v. State

Rajasthan HC4 Apr 2019CRLA/262/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail/jail appeal against a murder conviction, the High Court upheld the trial court's finding of guilt. The court relied on circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession, the recovery of the body in the appellant's locked room, and forensic blood match, dismissing doubts regarding the weapon's recovery time.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed under Section 383 Cr.P.C. stands rejected; the impugned judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Jaswant @ Jasa Ram Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

1 of 14 [CRLLA-262/2014]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶3

JODHPUR

¶4

D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 262/2014

Jaswant @ Jasa Ram

----Appellant

Versus

State

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S.Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, PP

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶13

Judgment

¶14

Date of Judgment: 04/04/2019

¶15

The instant Jail Appeal under Section 383 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant Jaswant @ Jasa Ram being aggrieved of the judgment dated 20.06.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali District Pali in Sessions Case No.25/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years’ simple imprisonment.

¶16

The brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are noted herein below.

¶17

2 of 14 [CRLLA-262/2014]

¶18

One Rajendra Singh (P.W.11) lodged a written report (Ex.P-35) to the SHO, PS Bali on 10.06.2011 at 6:30 p.m. alleging inter alia that he had gone to Bali for his personal work. In the evening at about 6 o’clock, Jaswant @ Jasa Ram S/o Pratap Ram Meghwal, Resident of Sesli, Pratap Chowk, Bali met him and blurted out that earlier on the same day, Chunni Lal S/o Vardaji hurled foul abuses towards him on which, he had killed Chunni Lal by a knife blow and had locked up the dead body in his room. Upon this, Rajendra Singh took Jaswant @ Jassa Ram with him to the police Station and lodged the report.

¶19

On the basis of this report, an FIR No.108/2011 (Ex.P-35) was registered at Police Station Bali for the offence under Section 302 IPC and investigation was commenced. The SHO Sumer Singh (P.W. 18), arrested the accused Jaswant vide arrest memo (Ex.P-11) and proceeded to the place of occurrence. The accused provided the key and opened the lock fixed on the door of the room where the dead body of Chunni Lal was lying. The panchanamas of the dead body was prepared. Site inspection was carried out at the place of occurrence. The blood stained and control soil samples were collected and a knife was seized at the instance of the accused. The dead body was subjected to autopsy through Medical Jurist, Dr. Poonam Chand Soni (P.W.14), who noticed as many as 22 antemortem incised and stab wounds on the dead body of Chunni Lal. Upon inspecting the internal organs, the intestine as well as the liver were found damaged and severe haemorrhage was seen. The cause of death was opined to be haemorrhagic shock due to multiple stab wounds causing damage

¶20

3 of 14 [CRLLA-262/2014]

¶21

to vital organs i.e. intestine and liver thus leading to excessive bleeding. The Medical Jurist issued postmortem report (Ex.P-18) with these findings. The seized blood stained articles were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical and serological examination. After conducting the remaining investigation, the SHO proceeded to file a charge sheet against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Since the offence was Sessions triable, the case was committed and transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bali for trial. The trial Court framed charge against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶22

The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and exhibited as many as 39 documents in support of its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused offered a bald denial to the prosecution’s allegations but did not lead any evidence in defence. After hearing the contentions advanced by the prosecution and the defence and upon appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above vide judgment dated 20.06.2013 which is assailed in this appeal.

¶23

The contention of Shri Rathore, learned Amicus Curiae for assailing the conviction of the appellant was that there is no evidence worth the name on the record to prove that the accused murdered Chunni Lal. There is no eye-witness of the incident. The prosecution did not lead any clinching or convincing evidence to show that the room from which the dead body was recovered was

¶24

4 of 14 [CRLLA-262/2014]

¶25

in the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused. He urged that the recovery of knife supposedly made by the Investigating Officer in furtherance of the information supplied by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is false and fabricated because the motbir witnesses Amra Ram (P.W.1) and Vaga Ram (P.W.2) have given categoric evidence that the Investigating Officer recovered the knife on the very same day on which the dead body was recovered. He further urged that the accused had no motive whatsoever to murder the deceased. The extra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused in presence of the witness Rajendra, P.W.11 is inadmissible in evidence and the same appears to be a pure piece of fabrication. He thus implored the Court to accept the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the appellant of the charges.

¶26

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by Shri Rathore learned Amicus Curiae and urged that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the accused by leading cogent and clinching circumstantial evidence. He urged that the evidence of extra judicial confession as deposed by an independent witness Rajendra Singh (P.W.11) followed by the recovery of dead body made at the instance of accused is by itself sufficient to bring home the charge against the accused. He further urged that the evidence of the prosecution witness Smt. Geeta (P.W.12) (wife of the deceased) establishes the motive attributed to the accused for the murder of her husband because he wanted to wriggle out repayment of the amount of Rs.30,000/- which Smt. Geeta and

¶27

5 of 14 [CRLLA-262/2014]

¶28

Chunni Lal had spent on the treatment of accused at Delhi. He further pointed out that the evidence of the witnesses Himmat (P.W.3), Juhar Singh (P.W.6), Khangara Ram (P.W.7) and Banna Ram (P.W.8) clearly establishes the fact that Chunni Lal had come to Sesli from Delhi, proximate to the fateful day and was seen roaming around with the deceased and thus, the evidence of Smt. Geeta is thoroughly corroborated. He further urged that no suggestion whatsoever was given by the learned defence counsel to the concerned prosecution witness to controvert the prosecution theory that the room from which the dead body was recovered was in conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. He also submitted that the key of the lock affixed to the room was in possession of the accused, who opened the same in presence of the motbir witnesses Amra Ram (P.W.1) and Vaga Ram (P.W.2) and upon the door being opened, the dead body of Chunni Lal was seen lying inside the room. He thus urged that there is an ample and wholesome proof on record which completes the chain of circumstances, unflinchingly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. He thus urged that the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference whatsoever and the appeal should be dismissed.

¶29

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the respective counsel and have gone through the material available on record and threadbare reappreciated the evidence led by the parties.

¶30

The prosecution case hinges around the evidence of Rajendra Singh (P.W.11) who, in his examination-in-chief, gave

¶31

6 of 14 [CRLLA-262/2014]

¶32

unwavering testimony alleging that he had gone to Bali on 10.06.2011. On that day, the accused-Jaswant met him at the Pratap Chowk Bali and voluntarily blurted out that there was an exchange of abuses between him and Chunni Lal whereafter he had murdered Chunni Lal by a knife and further divulged that the dead body was lying in a ‘Kotadi’ constructed on the on the route to Village Sesli which had been locked up by the accused. The witness acted naturally and took the accused to the Police Station, Bali and reported the matter to the police. Nothing significant was elicited in the cross examination conducted by the defence from this witness. Rather, we find that not even a single question was put to the witness regarding the words spoken by the accused to him which constitute evidence of extra judicial confession. Though, it is true that an extra judicial confession, by its very nature is considered to be a weak piece of evidence but when we consider the fact that the extra judicial confession was made by the accused to an independent person having no cause to falsely implicate him and when the words spoken are natural and convincing and find corroboration from surrounding circumstances, the same can be acted upon as material piece of evidence. It cannot be gainsaid that evidence of extra judicial confession would undoubtedly require corroboration. Sumer Singh (P.W.18), the then Circle Inspector stated in his evidence that Rajendra Singh submitted the written report (Ex.P-17) before him. In furtherance of this report, he proceeded to the place of occurrence with the accused-appellant Jaswant. The accused took out a key and opened the lock of the room from where the dead

¶33

7 of 14 [CRLLA-262/2014]

¶34

body of Chunni Lal was recovered. He also claimed that the accused made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that the knife with which he had murdered Chunni Lal was concealed in the very same room. In furtherance of this information, the Investigating Officer claims to have recovered the knife vide recovery memo (Ex.P-37). The clothes worn by the accused were stained with blood and were seized vide memorandum Ex.P-8. In cross examination, the Investigating Officer reaffirmed that the dead body was recovered upon being pointed out by the accused. The key of the lock affixed on the room was available with the accused, who opened the same and point out the dead body. The knife was recovered on the next day. Other than this, no significant question was put to the Investigating Officer in cross examination. The witness Amra Ram (P.W.1) who was associated as a Motbir in the search and seizure proceedings, gave evidence fully supporting the Memorandum (EX.P-4) whereby the dead body of Chunni Lal was recovered. He also proved the seizure memo of lock and key (Ex.P-9), the seizure memo of the clothes of the deceased (Ex.P-10) and the seizure memo of the clothes worn by the accused (Ex.P-8). In cross examination, the witness Amra Ram (P.W.1) admitted that he could not clearly see as to who opened the lock of the room of the accused, as he was standing behind. The witness also stated that the police recovered the knife on the very same day on which the dead body was recovered. This admission of the witness does create a doubt on the Investigating Officer’s claim that the knife was recovered on the day after the dead body was recovered.

¶35

8 of 14 [CRLLA-262/2014]

¶36

Otherwise also, we are of the firm view that the accused was not carrying the knife with him and since the dead body was found locked in the room in his possession, the Investigating Officer would definitely have made efforts to search for the weapon of the offence no sooner the dead body had been recovered. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the assertion made by the Investigating Officer that he recovered the knife on the information of the accused vide seizure memo (Ex.P-7) which is fit to be discarded.

¶37

Vaga Ram (P.W. 2) being the other motbir of the recovery of the dead body also supported the prosecution story to the hilt and proved the various seizure memos prepared by the Investigating Officer including that of recovery of the dead body of Chunni Lal from the room which was in the exclusive possession and under lock and key of the accused. No significant cross examination was conducted from this witness on these aspects of his testimony. This witness also admitted in his cross-examination that the police showed them a blood stained knife on the very same day. In this background also, the recovery of knife as claimed to have been effected by the Investigating Officer in furtherance of the information supplied by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is falsified. However, it is clear that this witness stood firm on his version that the accused opened the lock affixed on the room in his presence and the dead body was recovered from therein.

¶38

Himmat Singh (P.W. 3) also stated that Jaswant approached him on the evening of the incident and told him that

¶39

9 of 14 [CRLLA-262/2014]

¶40

he had murdered someone. On this, the witness advised Jaswant to go to the Police Station. No significant cross examination was conducted from this witness on this aspect of his testimony.

¶41

Rajendra (P.W.5) posted as a Constable at the Police Station Bali, was examined to prove the factum of transmission of the sealed malkhana articles from the Police Station Bali to the FSL, Jodhpur. The witness gave categoric evidence to prove that the samples remained in an intact condition right from the time they were handed over to him till the same were deposited at the FSL, Jodhpur.

¶42

Juhar Singh (P.W.6) gave evidence to the effect that Chunni Lal used to sing bhajans and was settled at Delhi. He saw Chunni Lal and Jaswant in the Village Sesli just before the incident. In the morning of the incident, both of them were seen together at the Hotel of Teja Ram. The accused opened the lock of the room where the dead body of Chunni Lal was seen lying. The evidence of this witness is relevant to the extent, he proved the presence of the deceased with the accused at the village Sesli on the day of the incident and two days prior thereto.

¶43

Khangara Ram (P.W.7) deposed that Chunni Lal used to live at Delhi and earned his livelihood by singing bhajans and kirtans. Whenever he came to the village, he would visit Jaswant. Jaswant was ill and thus he had gone to Delhi for getting himself treated. He (Jaswant) stayed at Delhi with Chunni Lal who claimed to have borne the expenses incurred in the treatment of Jaswant. Chunni Lal came to village Sesli to recover this amount from Jaswant. On the day of the incident, the witness claimed to

¶44

10 of 14 [CRLLA-262/2014]

¶45

have seen Chunni Lal and Jaswant together at the Hotel of Teja Ram. In the evening, he received information regarding the murder of Chunni Lal. Thus, from the evidence of this witness as well, the fact of Chunni Lal and Jaswant being seen in each other’s company in village Sesli is well established.

¶46

Banna Ram (P.W.8) also gave evidence akin to what was deposed by Khangara Ram (P.W.7). Bhaga Ram (P.W.10) Patwari proved the revenue record of the land where 'Kotadi' was constructed. However, it may be mentioned here that no question was put by the defence to any of the prosecution witnesses that the 'Kotadi'/Room in which the dead body of Chunni Lal was recovered was not in the conscious possession of the accused.

¶47

Smt. Geeta (P.W.12) wife of Chunni Lal deposed that Jaswant came to Delhi and stayed with them. He underwent an abdominal surgery at Delhi. She bore the operation charges to the tune of Rs.30,000/- after taking a loan from someone. Two years ago, her husband left Delhi saying that he was going to recover the amount from Jaswant and four days later, she received information that her husband had been killed by Jaswant. In cross examination, the witness agreed to the suggestion that her husband and Jaswant were close friends and there was no enmity between them. No question was put to the witness so as to doubt her version that the accused had come to Delhi and got himself treated by abdominal surgery and that the cost of operation was borne by Smt. Geeta. Thus, from the evidence of Smt. Geeta, it is duly established that Jaswant came to Delhi and stayed with them. He underwent a surgery and the expenses were borne by

¶48

11 of 14 [CRLLA-262/2014]

¶49

Smt. Geeta and Chunni Lal. Chunni Lal returned to Village Sesli for demanding the amount back from the accused who assaulted and killed Chunni Lal by multiple knife blows so as to eliminate him and avoid the repayment.

¶50

Dr. Poonam Chand Soni (P.W.14), proved the postmortem report (Ex.P-18) after conducting autopsy upon the dead body of Chunni Lal. As per the postmortem report (Ex.P18), as many as 22 antemortem incised wounds were noticed on the dead body of Chunni Lal. The cause of death was opined to be excessive bleeding caused by multiple injuries to intestine and liver. No significant cross examination was conducted from the Doctor. Thus, it is well established that the cause of death of Chunni Lal was haemorrhagic shock resulting from multiple stab wounds.

¶51

Ashok (P.W.15) was the photographer, who took the photographs of the entire procedure of the discovery and seizure of the dead body at the instance of the accused-Jaswant.

¶52

Raju Singh (P.W.16) was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Bali. He was working as Malkhana Incharge at the relevant time. He handed over the five packets of the seized articles alongwith the documents to Rajendra Constable for being transmitted to the FSL, Jodhpur.

¶53

Narayan Lal (P.W.17) was posted as Constable at the FSL branch Pali of the SP Office. He verified the articles/packets brought by Rajendra Constable and issued the forwarding letter to him.

¶54

12 of 14 [CRLLA-262/2014]

¶55

The following facts can safely be concluded from the evidence recorded at the trial.

¶56

That the deceased Chunni Lal used to reside at Delhi with his wife Smt. Geeta (P.W.12). The accused Jaswant and deceased Chunni Lal were closely acquainted with each other.

¶57

That the accused was having some health problem and thus he went to Delhi and got himself surgically treated. The expenses of Rs.30,000/- incurred in this procedure were borne by the deceased who came to Sesli from Delhi informing his wife that he was going to recover the money from the accused.

¶58

That the accused and the deceased were seen roaming around in the village Sesli during the corresponding period of two to three days before the incident.

¶59

That on the fateful day, the accused approached Himmat Singh (P.W.3) and Rajendra Singh (P.W.5) S/o Mod Singh and confessed that he had murdered Chunni Lal and the dead body was lying in his room;

¶60

Rajendra Singh (P.W.11) lodged the FIR (EXP-17) in which, the fact of extra judicial confession made by the accused that he had murdered Chunni Lal and that the dead body of Chunni Lal was lying in his room is clearly set out. Shri Sumer Singh (P.W.18) posted as SHO, PS Bali registered the FIR No.108/2011 on the basis of the information supplied by Rajendra Singh (P.W.11). He proceeded to the place of occurrence with the accused and Motbir witnesses Amra Ram (P.W.1) and Vaga Ram (P.W.2) and the Photographer Ashok. The accused opened the lock affixed on the door of the room with a key which he was

¶61

13 of 14 [CRLLA-262/2014]

¶62

having. The lock as well as the key were seized by the Investigating Officer vide Seizure Memo Ex.P-9. The dead body of Chunni Lal was seen lying inside the room with multiple sharp injuries. The dead body was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.P-2. The autopsy conducted on the body of Chunni Lal by Medical Officer Dr.Poonam Chand (P.W.12) resulted into a finding recorded in Postmortem Report (Ex.P-18) that the deceased had been caused no less than 22 incised/stab wounds leading to excessive damage to his intestines and liver causing hemorrhagic shock which proved instantaneously fatal.

¶63

That the photographer Ashok (P.W.15) snapped photos of the accused while he was opening the door of the room and of the dead body lying inside which fully corroborates the evidence of Investigating Officer and the Motbir witnesses.

¶64

That the recovery of knife made at the instance of accused vide Seizure Memo Ex.P-7 dated 10.06.2011 is prima facie unbelievable.

¶65

That the blood stained clothes of the deceased; blood smeared soil collected from the place of occurrence and the blood stained clothes of the accused were forwarded to the FSL for serological examination from where, a report (Ex.P-39) was received concluding that all these articles tested positive for presence of ‘B’ Group blood. Thus, the blood stains noticed on the clothes of the accused were found to be matching with the blood group of deceased and hence, the links of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution gain significant corroboration from the recovery of the blood-stained articles, referred to supra, all of

¶66

14 of 14 [CRLLA-262/2014]

¶67

which were stained with ‘B’ Group blood.

¶68

As a result of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has proved its case by leading cogent, clinching, convincing and complete links of circumstantial evidence and established it beyond all shadows of doubt that the accusedappellant Jaswant was responsible for the murderous assault made on the deceased Chunni Lal. The chain of circumstances narrated above proves comprehensively that it was unexceptionally, the accused-appellant who murdered the deceased. The trial Court appreciated the evidence available on record in just and apropos manner while arriving at a finding of guilt against the accused-appellant. The impugned judgment dated 20.06.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions Case No.25/2011 does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity whatsoever warranting interference therein.

¶69

As a consequence of the above discussion, we find no merit in the instant appeal, which is hereby rejected.

¶70

Record be returned forthwith.

¶71

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR), J. (SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

¶72

Mamta

Jaswant @ Jasa Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswant @ Jasa Ram 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

Ratan Lal Vs State

Mamta Vs State of Rajasthan