Dismissed

Deepa Ram v. State

Rajasthan HC10 Apr 2019CRLA/463/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the High Court of Rajasthan rejected the appellant's challenge to his conviction for murder. Upholding the trial court's finding, the court held that the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifted to the accused to explain the fatal injuries inflicted on his wife within their joint residence, a burden he failed to discharge.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal filed by the appellant was rejected, and the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were affirmed.

Deepa 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. 463/2010

¶3

Deepa Ram son of Shri Jetharam, by caste Kumhar, Resident of
Bangla Nagar, Bikaner.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tarun Dhaka.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, PP.

¶4

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

¶5

Judgment

¶6

Date of Judgment: 10/04/2019

¶7

(BY THE COURT: PER HON’BLE MEHTA, J.)

¶8

The accused Deepa Ram stands convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 12.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.82/2009:

¶9

Offence Under Section 302 IPC	Sentence Life Imprisonment	Fine Rs.1,000/	Fine Default sentence Two Months’ Additional Simple Imprisonment

¶10

Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentence, the accused appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

¶11

(2 of 10)

¶12

[CRLA-463/2010]

¶13

Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted herein below:

¶14

Kedar Ram (PW-2) son of Dhannaram lodged a written report (Ex.P/2) to the SHO, Police Station Nayashahar, District Bikaner on 22.08.2009 at 05.30 pm. alleging inter alia that the informant’s daughter Licchma was married to Mangilal son of Deeparam resident of Bhinasar. His daughter’s in-laws Kamla and Deeparam used to live alone in Bangla Nagar, Bikaner. Pappuram Kumhar, a neighbour of Deeparam, approached the complainant on 22.08.2009 at about 04.00 pm. and told him that his son’s fatherin-law Deeparam was beating his wife Kamla and fervent cries of the lady were coming out from the house. An attempt was made to open the door but it was locked from inside. On receiving this information, the complainant informed his son-in-law Mangilal on phone and asked him to reach his father’s house. The informant himself reached the house of Deeparam. The main gate was locked from inside. 4-5 neighbours were standing outside. The complainant identified himself and called name Deeparam from outside on which, he opened the door and sat down on a Charpai in the Baramada of his house. The door of the kitchen and the shop were locked. He asked Deeparam for the whereabouts of Smt. Kamla on which, he replied that she had gone to Bhinasar with her children. However, while saying so, the voice as well as body of Deeparam were trembling and his clothes were stained with blood. The informant made an attempt to open the door of the kitchen upon which, Deeparam restrained him from doing so and stated that he had to go the market for purchasing items to stock the shop. Stating so, he took the informant to the Pattipeda. A little later, the informant’s son-in-law Mangilal i.e. the son of

¶15

(3 of 10)

¶16

[CRLA-463/2010]

¶17

Deeparam, came to Pattipeda crying and blurted out that his father Deeparam had killed his mother and the deadbody was lying in the kitchen with her head totally crushed and blood was spread all around the kitchen. On this, the first informant took his son-in-law Mangilal and Pappuram Kumhar (a neighbour of Deeparam) to the Police Station and reported the matter. On the basis of his report, an FIR No.233/2009 was registered at the Police Station Nayashahar, District Bikaner for the offence under Section 302 IPC and investigation was commenced. The place of the incident was inspected. The deadbody of Smt. Kamla was found lying inside the kitchen of the house where, she and the accused appellant exclusively resided. Her skull was totally crushed and the brain matter was coming out. The Mobile Forensic Unit, Bikaner was involved to conduct site inspection. The sample of blood spread at the place of the incident were seized. The accused appellant was arrested. The blood stained clothes worn by him at the time of the arrest was seized and sealed. The deadbody of Smt. Kamla was subjected to postmortem at the P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner. The Medical Board issued a postmortem report (Ex.P/1) opining that the cause of death of Smt. Kamla was antemortem head injury. The accused appellant gave an information to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/37) in furtherance whereof, he took the I.O. to his residential premises, opened the gate of the shop with the key concealed by him in a suitcase and got an iron angle suspected to be the weapon of offence stained with blood recovered. The blood stained articles were forwarded to the FSL for serological examination from where, a report (Ex.P/38) was received establishing the fact that the blood soaked gauze piece (collected from the place of occurrence),

¶18

(4 of 10)

¶19

[CRLA-463/2010]

¶20

the kurta of the accused, the blouse and Odhni of the deceased and the iron angle recovered at the instance of the accused all tested positive for presence of ‘B’ Group human blood. After concluding investigation, the investigating officer 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 the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bikaner for trial.

¶21

The learned Trial Judge, framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused for the above offence. The accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examination as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 39 documents in support of its case. The accused, upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC., denied the prosecution allegation and claimed that he was not present in the house when the incident took place. He had gone to purchase goods for his shop. When he returned, he saw his wife lying dead in a pool of blood inside the kitchen. Some unknown persons had assaulted and killed his wife. A big stone patti was used to inflict the fatal injury. He picked up the deadbody in his arms on which, his clothes got blood stained. He went to Kedar Ram and requested him to inform his son. Kedar Ram had taken a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as loan from him and in order to wriggle out of the repayment thereof, he conspired with his son and foisted a false case against him.

¶22

After hearing the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and after appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Judge proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above. Hence this appeal.

¶23

(5 of 10)

¶24

[CRLA-463/2010]

¶25

Learned Amicus Curiae Shri Tarun Dahaka representing the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses Kedar Ram (PW-2) and Mangilal (PW-5) is unbelievable and should be discarded for the reason that these witnesses were bearing a strong motive to falsely implicate the appellant herein. He urged that Kedar Ram had taken a huge sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as loan from the appellant and he was avoiding the repayment thereof. Taking advantage of the factum of homicidal death of Smt. Kamla by some unknown assailant, Kedar Ram and Mangi Lal (son of the appellant herein and son-in-law of Kedar Ram) hatched a conspiracy to implicate the appellant and falsely entangled him in the case. He urged that the theory projected in the evidence of Kedar Ram that the appellant showed resistance while he was trying to open the door of the kitchen is totally cooked up. As a matter of fact, the witness had accompanied the appellant to the market for purchasing the goods to be stocked in the shop and seeing the lady alone, some unknown assailant entered into the house and killed her with the objective of looting the valuables. He urged that the entire sequence of recovery of the deadbody accomplished by the I.O. vide the memorandum (Ex.P/4) is also concocted because the two motbirs associated with these proceedings were none other than Kedar Ram and Mangilal. He further submitted that the FIR was lodged on 22.08.2009 at 05.30 pm. The site inspection proceedings were undertaken upto 07.00 pm. and the accused was arrested as late as at 10.30 pm. He made no effort to escape or hide his presence which shows his innocent conduct. He further submitted that the recovery of iron angle made at the instance of

¶26

(6 of 10)

¶27

[CRLA-463/2010]

¶28

the accused vide recovery memo (Ex.P/13) dated 23.09.2008 is totally fabricated because as per him, it is impossible to believe that the I.O. did not recover the weapon of offence on the very day the FIR was lodged because the entire premises were searched threadbare while preparing the site inspection plan. He further urged that the presence of the blood stains on the clothes of the accused is well explained because he tried to check the deceased for signs of life and in all probability, he caught the blood stains on his clothes at that time. He thus implored the Court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the appellant of the charge.

¶29

Per contra, Shri Anil Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Rajasthan vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae. He urged that Kedar Ram is an independent witness and had no cause whatsoever to falsely implicate the accused appellant. He urged that the theory put up by the accused in his defence that Kedar Ram had taken a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from him is totally fictional and has been put-forth as an afterthought to create a foundation for the claim of false implication. No corresponding documentary evidence was brought on record to substantiate this defence theory. He further submitted that even in this conjectural suggestion given to the witness Kedar Ram, no date, month or year when the loan was allegedly advanced, was suggested. He further submitted that even, if it is assumed for a moment that the accused had advanced loan to Kedar Ram, then too, it cannot be expected that Mangilal (PW-5) being the son of the appellant herein, would support Kedar Ram rather than coming to the aid of the accused while deposing in the court. He drew the Court’s

¶30

(7 of 10)

¶31

[CRLA-463/2010]

¶32

attention to the suggestion given by the defence to Shri Mangilal that only the accused appellant and his wife Smt. Kamla lived together in the house. He further submitted that the defence theory that Smt. Kamla received the fatal injury by a stone slab falling on her head is totally falsified from the site inspection proceedings (Ex.P/4), statement of the I.O. Shri Rameshwar Lal (PW-11) and the medical evidence as deposed by Dr. P.K. Saini (PW-1). He thus implored the Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the conviction of the appellant herein.

¶33

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have threadbare re-appreciated the evidence available on record and have carefully perused the impugned judgment.

¶34

The following undisputed facts emerge from the material on record:

¶35

(i) that the appellant herein and his wife Smt. Kamla, the deceased, used to reside together in the house at Bangla Nagar, Bikaner;

¶36

(ii) that the accused and the deceased were the only occupants of the house in question;

¶37

(iii) that the accused and his wife Smt. Kamla were heard quarreling with each other by Pappu Ram (PW-8) and that Smt. Kamla was not seen alive thereafter;

¶38

(iv) that the witness Kedar Ram went to the house of the accused on receiving the information regarding some violence committed with his wife Smt. Kamla. The door of the house was closed. The witness, requested the accused to open the door upon which, the accused unbolted the door of the house from inside. Kamla was no where to be seen and the doors of the kitchen and the shop were

¶39

(8 of 10)

¶40

[CRLA-463/2010]

¶41

locked. Kedar Ram tried to convince the accused to open the door of his kitchen but, the accused evaded this request and gave a false reply that Kamla had gone to Bhinasar. The witness had called Mangilal his son-in-law and son of the accused to the place of the incident. The accused took the witness to the market under the pretext of buying goods to stock up the shop. This fact is corroborated by the testimony of Pappu Ram (PW-8). In the meantime, Mangilal son of the accused and the deceased, opened the door of the kitchen and saw the deadbody of her mother lying there with the head crushed and blood spread all around the kitchen;

¶42

(v) that the explanation given by the accused to Shri Kedar Ram that his wife had gone to Bhinasar was patently false;

¶43

(vi) that the claim made in the site inspection memo prepared by the I.O. that the deadbody was recovered in pursuance to the door of the kitchen being opened by the key provided by the accused, is incorrect because as per the information made in the FIR, Mangilal had already seen the deadbody lying in the kitchen. (vii) that the recovery of the iron angle allegedly made in furtherance of the information provided by the accused to the I.O. is not palpable because, it is impossible to believe that the I.O. would wait till the next day for the information by the accused. It is foolhardy to believe that the I.O. did not search the house of the accused immediately after recovery of the deadbody because admittedly, the accused had no opportunity to leave the house with the weapon;

¶44

(viii) that the medical evidence as deposed by Dr. P.K. Saini (PW1) establishes beyond all doubt that the autopsy revealed that the deadbody of Smt. Kamla had multiple lacerated wounds on her

¶45

(9 of 10)

¶46

[CRLA-463/2010]

¶47

face, head, neck and other parts of the body. All these injuries were ante-mortem inflicted by a blunt weapon and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; and

¶48

(x) that the clothes worn by the accused were bearing blood stains and when the same were forwarded to the FSL alongwith the blood stained clothes of the deceased and the blood stains gauze piece collected from the place of the occurrence. All the articles gave positive result for presence of ‘B’ Group blood.

¶49

In view of the facts narrated above which are fully supported by the witnesses the evidence whereof has been discussed above, we are of the firm opinion that the burden to explain the circumstances in which, Smt. Kamla received innumerable injuries by a blunt weapon inside the four walls of the house where she and the accused resided, was unexceptionally upon the accused by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The explanation offered by the accused that Smt. Kamla had gone to Bhinasar is false and concocted. The accused also parried the attempts of Kedar Ram to open the door of the kitchen and at that time, his clothes were blood stained. This fact strengthens the reverse burden of proof against the accused. This is a fittest case wherein, the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifts upon the accused who would be required to explain the circumstances in which, his wife received the fatal injuries. The accused, instead of giving a satisfactory explanation in this regard, gave a false reply and thus, he miserably failed to discharge the burden cast upon him by law. Even if the recovery of the iron angle and the key of the lock made at the instance of the accused

¶50

(10 of 10)

¶51

[CRLA-463/2010]

¶52

are eschewed from consideration, manifestly, the accused would still have to give an explanation as to how, he received the blood stains bearing blood group of Smt. Kamla on his clothes. The plea advanced by Shri Tarun Dhaka, Amicus Curiae that the accused tried to check his wife and received the blood stains in this process, is totally unacceptable and untenable because the positive evidence of Kedar Ram is that not only did the accused offer a false explanation in this regard, but thereafter, he made active efforts to evade the discovery of the deadbody by taking Kedar Ram with him to the market.

¶53

In view of the discussion made herein above, we are in conformity with the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment dated 12.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bikaner that the accused was unexceptionally the perpetrator of the offence involving murder of his wife Smt. Kamla within the precincts of the house where he and the deceased Smt. Kamla were living.

¶54

For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the instant appeal which is hereby rejected.

¶55

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶56

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶57

3-Tikam/-

Deepa Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepa Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

Net Ram @ Dholu Ram Vs State

Vinay Kumar Vs State