Dismissed

Net Ram @ Dholu Ram v. State

Rajasthan HC10 Apr 2019CRLA/341/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction for murder, the High Court upheld the trial court's judgment. The court rejected the argument to downgrade the offense to culpable homicide, citing evidence of fatal intent established by the fracture of the hyoid bone.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; trial court judgment upholding murder conviction and life imprisonment upheld. Nothing. Record of trial court returned.

Net Ram @ Dholu Ram Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 341/2010

¶3

Net Ram @ Dholu Ram S/o. Aadram, By Caste Suthar, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Sahuwala, Tehsil Bhadara, District Hanumangarh.

----Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Appellant : Mr. R. S. Choudhary For Respondent : Mr. N. S. Bhati, Public Prosecutor Mr. M. S. Godara, for Complainant

¶9

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

¶10

Judgment

¶11

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

¶12

10/04/2019

¶13

The present jail appeal was admitted by this Court on 09/08/2010 and Shri Vivek Shah, Advocate was appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the accused-appellant, but thereafter Shri R.S. Choudhary filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the accused-appellant.

¶14

The jail appeal aforesaid has been preferred by the accusedappellant Net Ram @ Dholu Ram against the judgment dated 30/06/2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhadara, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.29/2009, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in

¶15

(2 of 8)

¶16

[CRLA-341/2010]

¶17

default of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ imprisonment.

¶18

Briefly, the facts stated in the written report (Ex.P/8) lodged by PW.5 Madanlal at the Police Station Bhirani, District Hanumangarh on 28/10/2009 are that he was resident of village Kaluwana, Tehsil Dabawali, District Sirsa. His two sisters namely Kaushalya and Virata were married to Net Ram @ Dholu Ram and Liluram, respectively, for last 22 years. Kaushalya had five children i.e. four daughters and one son. On 28/10/2009 at around 01:00 PM Shankarlal who is the brother-in-law of his sisters (Kaushalya and Virata) telephonically informed him that Net Ram @ Dholu Ram had assaulted his sister Kaushalya, & had strangulated her to death. On getting this information, the informant along with Prathvi Ram, Om Prakash, Subhash, his brother Sarjeet and maternal uncle Shreeram went to village Sahuwala where the dead body of Kaushalya was lying on a cot. They all saw that there were injury marks on the neck of Kaushalya. The report was lodged to this effect and confer the allegation that his brother-in-law had murdered his sister at around 12 O’clock.

¶19

On the basis of the report aforesaid, a formal FIR No.289/2009 (Ex.P/9) was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC at the Police Station Bhirani, District Hanumangarh.

¶20

After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

¶21

(3 of 8)

¶22

[CRLA-341/2010]

¶23

Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charge for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C to the accusedappellant who denied the charge and sought trial.

¶24

During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and documents from Ex.1 to Ex.13A were exhibited.

¶25

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 he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. However, no evidence was produced by the defence except the statement of Ramesh Kumar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.D/1 was exhibited by the defence.

¶26

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 and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 30/06/2010. Hence this appeal.

¶27

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

Shri R. S. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegation levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no convincing or cogent evidence available on record so as to sustain the appellant’s conviction for the offence alleged. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in the correct perspective and, therefore, erred while convicting and sentencing

¶29

(4 of 8)

¶30

[CRLA-341/2010]

¶31

the appellant for the offence alleged vide judgment dated 30/06/2010.

¶32

He further urges that the incident took place after a heated altercation between the appellant and his wife Kaushalya and in the heat of passion, he lost his control and choked his wife’s neck unintentionally which resulted into her death. He had no intention to cause fatal injury to his wife and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant deserves to be toned down from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC.

¶33

On the strength of the submissions made above, learned counsel 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 30/06/2010 passed by learned trial Court.

¶34

E-converso , learned public prosecutor has supported the judgment dated 30/06/2010 and stated that the prosecution had been able to prove the offence alleged against him beyond all shadows of doubt.

¶35

He contends that the testimony of PW.1 Shankarlal and PW.4 Ramesh is clear and specific as to the fact that the appellant throttled Kaushalya resulting into her death. PW.1 Shankarlal and PW.4 Ramesh are brother and son of the appellant, respectively. The testimony of these witnesses is clinching and worth credence. Their evidence thoroughly corroborated by the testimony of the Medical Jurist PW.6 Dr. Suresh Swami, who conducted autopsy upon the dead body of deceased - Smt. Kaushalya & opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. The Postmortem Report (Ex.P.11) further fortifies

¶36

(5 of 8)

¶37

[CRLA-341/2010]

¶38

their testimony by reporting the cause of death as asphyxia due to throttling.

¶39

On the strength of these arguments, learned public prosecutor submits that the prosecution has proved the charge levelled against the accused-appellant beyond all manner of doubt and, therefore, learned trial Court was perfectly justified in convicting the appellant for the offence alleged vide judgment dated 30/06/2010.

¶40

We have considered the submissions made at bar and have minutely sifted through the record of the case as well as the impugned judgment dated 30/06/2010 rendered by the trial Court.

¶41

PW.1 Shankarlal, brother of the accused-appellant categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that on 28/10/2009 at around 12:00 O’clock in the afternoon, while he was sitting at his shop, Dalveer (P.W. 3) who is the neighbor of the accused-appellant came at his shop and told that Net Ram was fighting with his wife Kaushalya in their house. On getting this information, he went to the house of appellant and saw that Net Ram @ Dholu Ram had grabbed the neck of his wife while she was lying on the floor and on his raising an alarm, the accused released Kaushalya and fled from the house. Kaushalya was gasping for breath and thereafter in a short while, she died. There were injury marks on the neck of Kaushalya. Shankarlal shifted Kaushalya on to the cot. He then telephonically informed Madanlal, the brother of the deceased about the incident who came to the spot with 3-4 other persons and lodged the report. Net Ram @ Dholu Ram and Kaushalya had five children. At that

¶42

(6 of 8)

¶43

[CRLA-341/2010]

¶44

relevant time, son of the appellant was with him at his workshop. The police prepared the memos at the spot, on which Shankarlal affixed his signatures. 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-inchief.

¶45

PW.3 Dalveer being immediate neighbor of the accusedappellant stated in his evidence that at around 12 O’clock on 28/10/2009, he heard cries of “ Maar Diya, Maar Diya ” made by Kaushalya from the house of the appellant and, therefore, he went to the shop of Shankarlal (PW.1) and informed him of the same. PW.4 Ramesh son of the accused-appellant was also present at the shop. After informing them of the same, he went to Bhadara.

¶46

PW.4 Ramesh is a child witness. He is the son of the deceased and the accused-appellant. He has also deposed almost on the same lines as stated by PW. 1 Shankarlal.

¶47

PW.6 Dr. Suresh Swami was a member of board which conducted the autopsy upon the dead body of the deceased Kaushalya. He stated that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to strangulation.

¶48

PW.10 Indra Kumar 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 and submitted the charge sheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶49

The accused was arrested vide Arrest memo (Ex.P.10) dated 30/10/2009. Postmortem Report is Ex.P.11 wherein the

¶50

(7 of 8)

¶51

[CRLA-341/2010]

¶52

cause of death in the opinion of the board was shown as asphyxia due to throttling.

¶53

The testimony of PW.1 Shankarlal and PW.4 Ramesh is to the effect that when they reached the place of incident i.e. house of the appellant, he was throttling Kaushalya and upon sensing presence of Shankarlal who raised an alarm, the appellant left Kaushalya and fled from the house. Kaushalya fell on the ground. She was gasping for air and struggling for her life and in a short while she died on the spot. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the testimony of PW.1 Shankarlal and PW.4 Ramesh who are the brother and son respectively of the appellant. Nothing has come on record which remotely suggests that both these witnesses are trying to falsely implicate the appellant in the case. The testimony couple of PW.1 Shankarlal, PW.3 Dalveer & PW.4 Ramesh receives corroboration from the statement of PW.6 Dr. Suresh Swami and the Postmortem Report (Ex.P.11) wherein the cause of death of Smt. Kaushalya is shown to be asphyxia due to throttling. In the light of reliable and clinching evidence discussed above, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant strangulated his wife to death. The testimony of PW.1 Shankarlal and PW.4 Ramesh is fully fortified and corroborated from the medical evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove the allegation levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶54

We are not convinced with the argument put forth by learned counsel for the appellant for toning down the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC as the fracture of the hyoid bone shows the extent of pressure applied for throttling the deceased which clearly establishes the

¶55

(8 of 8) [CRLA-341/2010]

¶56

fact that the appellant intended to cause fatal injury to his wife, and thus disconnected the oxygen flow to her body resulting into her death and, therefore, the intention was to cause death. Thus the argument for toning down the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC is thereby to be rejected.

¶57

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 30/06/2010 passed by trial Court is upheld. The record of the trial court be returned forthwith.

¶58

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶59

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶60

2-SanjayS/-

Net Ram @ Dholu Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Net Ram @ Dholu 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

Kishan Lal Vs State

Kana Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohan Lal Vs State

Smt Badli Devi Vs State

Deepa Ram Vs State

Vinay Kumar Vs State