Partly allowed

Sumer Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC19 Jul 2019CRLA/470/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan disposed of two criminal appeals regarding murder. Court acquitted one appellant for lack of evidence on conspiracy and motive, upholding the conviction of the other co-accused based on corroboration with forensic and medical evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appellant-Suman acquitted and set at liberty; conviction and sentence of Appellant-Sumer upheld.

Sumer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

(1) D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 415/2015

¶3

Smt Suman wife of Tara Chand, B/c Meghwal, aged about 37 years, R/o Pabana, Police Station, Mukangarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Presently confined in Jail at Jhunjhunu)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

(2) D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 470/2015

¶9

Sumer Singh S/o Sh. Jagmal Singh, by caste Rajput R/o Dundlod, Mukangarh, Jhunjhunu.

¶10

(At present at District Jail, Jhunjhunu)

¶11

----Appellant

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Appellant(s) : Pt. Shri Ram Joshi Adv. & Mr. Amit Punia, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Chaudhary, P.P. For Complainant : Mr. M.K. Jain Adv.

¶16

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶17

Order

¶18

19/07/2019

¶19

Vide this order above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of.

¶20

(2 of 8)

¶21

[CRLA-415/2015]

¶22

Complainant-Babulal moved a complaint before the Police Station Mukundgarh, District Jhunjhunu that his brother Richhpal was running a brick-kiln. Suman was doing labour work at the brick-kiln. Suman got Richhpal murdered on 4.3.2012 as she did not want to repay loan money to Richhpal. On the basis of Exhibit P-2 complaint filed by complainant-Babulal, formal FIR (Exhibit P-3) bearing No.39 was registered at Police Station Mukundgarh, District Jhunjhunu on 5.3.2012 under Section 302 and 120B IPC.

¶23

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

¶24

Charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 302, 302/34 IPC. Appellants did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

¶25

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case.

¶26

Appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.

¶27

Trial court vide impugned judgment/order dated 7.5.2015 ordered the conviction of the appellant-Sumer under Section 302 IPC and appellant-Suman under Section 302/34 IPC. Hence, present appeal by the appellants.

¶28

Learned counsel for appellant-Sumer has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. Appellant has been falsely involved in this case. Appellant had no motive to commit the murder of the deceased.

¶29

(3 of 8)

¶30

[CRLA-415/2015]

¶31

Learned counsel for appellant-Suman has submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against appellantSuman. The story putforth by the prosecution that appellantSuman had borrowed money from deceased Richhpal and she did not want to repay the said amount and had got him murdered, was not established on record. PW-4 Tarachand and PW-5 Kaushalya have deposed that appellant-Suman had not participated in the crime. PW-3 Ram Kumar has deposed that appellant-Suman had caught hold of deceased Richhpal from his feet. When appellant-Sumer had inflicted injuries to him. However, the said witness has deposed falsely against the appellant with a view to involve her in this case. Similarly, no reliance could be placed on the testimony of PW-7.

¶32

Learned State counsel who is assisted by counsel for the complainant has opposed the appeals.

¶33

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that appellant-Suman had called Richhpal to her house on the pretext that she would return his money. However, when Richhpal reached her house, appellant-Suman alongwith appellant-Sumer committed the murder of Richhpal. Appellant-Suman had caught hold of the deceased from his feet, whereas, appellant-Sumer had given Farsa blows to the deceased.

¶34

Present case relates to murder of Richhpal. Case rests on eye witness account.

¶35

PW-1 Babulal S/o Arjun Ram did not support the prosecution case, during trial.

¶36

(4 of 8)

¶37

[CRLA-415/2015]

¶38

PW-2 Babulal (complainant) deposed that they were running a brick-kiln in Village Balwantpura. Tarachand, Jagdish and Suman W/o Tarachand were working as labour at the brick-kiln. Suman and Tarachand had borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from Richhpal. On 4.3.2012 at about 10 p.m., Suman had called Richhpal to her house on phone call, on the pretext that she would repay the loan. When Richhpal reached the house of Suman, he was murdered by Suman and Sumer. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had come to know about the incident on the next day in the morning.

¶39

PW-3 Ram Kumar deposed that on the day of incident, he was present in his house. On hearing alarm, he went to the house of Suman. He saw that Suman had caught hold of Richhpal from his feet and Sumer was giving Farsa blows to Richhpal. As a result, Richhpal died. Richhpal fell in the water tank, which was full of earth.

¶40

PW-4 Tarachand deposed that on the day of incident, he returned home at about 8/8.30 p.m. after closing his shop. At about 10.00 p.m., he heard noise from the house of Tarachand. Immediately, he reached the spot and saw that Sumer was giving Farsa blows to Richhpal. Suman was not with him. At that time, Suman was present at some distance.

¶41

PW-5 Kaushalya has corroborated the statement of PW-4 and stated that Suman had not participated in the crime.

¶42

PW-7 Suresh Kumar deposed that on 4.3.2012, he heard some noise. When he reached near the water tank, he saw that

¶43

(5 of 8)

¶44

[CRLA-415/2015]

¶45

Suman had caught hold of Richhpal and Sumer was inflicting injuries to Richhpal with a Farsa .

¶46

PW-11 Doctor Shivdan Singh deposed that on 5.3.2012, he had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Richhpal. He proved the postmortem examination report Exhibit P- 17. A perusal of the said report reveals that the deceased had suffered six injuries. The cause of death of the deceased was spinal shock due to injury No.3, which was antemortem in nature.

¶47

The other witnesses have deposed with regard to the investigation conducted in the case.

¶48

Exhibit P-24 is the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. A perusal of the said report reveals that human blood was found on the clothes of the deceased as well as appellant-Sumer. The blood group of the human blood found on the shirt and pant of the deceased matched with the human blood found on shirt and pant belonging to appellant-Sumer.

¶49

During investigation, recovery of Farsa was effected from appellant-Sumer. The said fact is evident from Exhibit P-8 memo of recovery of the Farsa at the instance of appellant-Sumer.

¶50

Thus, so far as appellant-Sumer is concerned, the ocular version is duly corroborated by medical evidence. As per the eye witnesses, appellant-Sumer had inflicted Farsa blows to the deceased. As per Doctor Shivdan Singh PW-11, injuries on the person of the deceased were a result of sharp edged weapon. Moreover, the blood group of the blood stains on the clothes of the deceased matched with the blood group of the blood stains found

¶51

(6 of 8)

¶52

[CRLA-415/2015]

¶53

on the clothes of the appellant-Sumer. So far as appellant-Sumer is concerned, prosecution had been successful in proving its case against him beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Learned trial court has rightly ordered conviction and sentence of appellantSumer under section 302 IPC.

¶54

So far as appellant Suman is concerned, motive attributed to her is that she had borrowed money from Richhpal and had no intention to repay the same. Due to this reason, she had called Richhpal to her house and had got him murdered with the help of Sumer.

¶55

PW-2 Babulal/complainant deposed that on 4.3.2012, Suman had called Richhpal to her residence by making a phone call to him. However, no such call details have been proved on record to establish that Suman had in-fact called Richhpal to her residence by making a phone call. There is also no corroborative evidence on record with regard to the money lent by deceased Richhpal to appellant-Suman. Rather, appellant-Suman was doing labour work at the brick-kiln of deceased Richhpal. It is not brought out on record by the prosecution as to why Richhpal would have given Rs.1,50,000 / Rs.2,00,000 to appellant-Suman and her husband, who were doing labour work at his brick-kiln. Apart from, oral testimony of PW-2 Babulal and PW-3 Ram Kumar (relative of the deceased) there no other convincing corroborative evidence on record in this regard. Moreover, the fact that such amount had been given on loan by deceased to appellant-Suman is also not mentioned in Exhibit P-2, the initial version.

¶56

(7 of 8)

¶57

[CRLA-415/2015]

¶58

PW-4 Tarachand and PW-5 Kaushalya have deposed that appellant-Suman had not participated in the crime. Thus, the said eye witnesses have not attributed any specific overt act to appellant-Suman at the time of commission of crime.

¶59

PW-3 Ram Kumar deposed that Suman had caught hold of Richhpal from his feet, whereas, PW-7 Suresh Kumar has deposed that appellant-Suman had caught hold of the deceased, but had not specifically stated as to how Suman had caught hold of Richhpal. It appears that PW-3 Ram Kumar, who is the relative of the deceased and PW-7 Suresh Kumar have deposed that appellant-Suman had caught hold of the deceased with a view to implicate her in this case.

¶60

Although, in the present case, dead body was recovered from dry water tank in the courtyard of appellant-Suman, but the said fact in itself is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that she had also participated in the crime. A perusal of the site plan Exhibit P-7 reveals that, although, the water tank is in the courtyard of appellant-Suman but there is no gate fixed to obstruct the entry. The courtyard has a boundary of hedge with no gate. Appellant-Suman and appellant-Sumer are not related to each other. Then there was no occasion for appellant-Suman to have joined hands with appellant-Sumer to commit the crime.

¶61

Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish any nexus between appellant-Suman and appellant-Sumer with regard to the commission of murder of Richhpal. Suman was unarmed at the time of incident. Appellant-Sumer who was armed with a Farsa had inflicted blows with it to the deceased.

¶62

(8 of 8)

¶63

[CRLA-415/2015]

¶64

Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish that appellantSuman and appellant-Sumer had conspired together to commit the murder of the deceased. The possibility that appellant-Suman might have been falsely involved in this case, cannot be ruled out. Thus, appellant-Suman is liable to be acquitted by giving her benefit of doubt.

¶65

Accordingly, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.415/2015 is allowed. Appellant-Suman is acquitted of the charges framed against her. Appellant-Suman who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. So far as D.B. Criminal Appeal No.470/2015 is concerned, the same is dismissed. Conviction and sentence of appellant-Sumer as ordered by the trial court are upheld.

¶66

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant Suman W/o Tara Chand is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, 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 appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.

¶67

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)J.

¶68

(SABINA)J.

¶69

Brijesh-33-34.

Sumer Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumer Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Sher Singh @ Shera Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Radheyshyam S/O Girraj Prasad B/C Mahajan Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Chand Vs Smt Prem Devi

State of Rajasthan through Pp Vs Amit Kumar Joshi S/O Kailashchand Joshi B/C Brahmin

Nandkishore S/O Shri Kaniyalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Hansraj Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp