Allowed

Champa Lal v. State

Rajasthan HC3 May 2019CRLA/844/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against a murder conviction, the High Court examined the trial court's finding of guilt amidst contradictory medical and eyewitness evidence. The Court emphasized that a single ante-mortem injury resulted from an accidental fall into a well, not murder, and consequently acquitted the appellant, quashing the lower court's judgment.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence quashed; appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 302, 201, and 120B IPC; released from prison subject to bond.

Champa Lal Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 844/2015

¶3

Champa Lal S/o Shri Ratna Ram, by caste Nayak, R/o Rabadiyawas, Raas Police Station, District Pali. (Lodged in District Jail, Pali)

¶4

State

¶5

----Appellant Versus ----Respondent

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

Date of Pronouncement :- 03/05/2019 Judgment Reserved on :- 10/04/2019

¶9

(Per Hon’ble Mehta,J.)

¶10

The accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below vide the judgment dated 30.06.2015 passed by learned Addl Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali in Sessions Case No.28/2010:-

¶11

Under Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months’ RI.

¶12

Under Section 201 IPC One year’s rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days’ RI.

¶13

(Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.)

¶14

(2 of 17)

¶15

[CRLA-844/2015]

¶16

Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences awarded to him, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶17

Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are narrated hereinbelow:-

¶18

The complainant Radha (PW.1) submitted a written report (Ex.D/4) at Village Rabadiyawas to the SHO PS Raas on 11.09.2010 at 10:00 am alleging inter alia that her husband Sugnaram and brother-in-law Champa Lal (accused appellant herein) used to reside in close vicinity near the Rabadiyawas Talab. They were not on talking terms for quite some time and the accused bore an ill-will against the complainant’s family. He was in a habit of quarrelling and hurling abuses on trivial issues. On 09.09.2010, during day time, a quarrel ensued between her husband and Champa Lal over an issue of breaking of an earthen pot by the children. Her husband had taken the field of one Dilip Singh Jodha on cultivation basis in which he sowed the crops. Her husband usually went to the field for guarding the crops in the night time after taking dinner. On 09.09.2010, her husband took dinner and left for the field at about 9 O’clock. At that time, the accused appellant Champa Lal was sitting outside of his house and was looking towards her husband in an ominous manner. He also hurled abuses towards Sugnaram. The complainant claimed that she was standing outside her house and was watching the events. About an hour and half to two hours after her husband had gone,

¶19

(3 of 17)

¶20

[CRLA-844/2015]

¶21

she saw the accused appellant Champa Lal going out of his house carrying a stick and an axe in his hand and he was muttering to himself. The accused appellant Champa Lal remained out during the entire night and returned to his house on 10.09.2010 between 7 to 8 O’clock in the morning. He changed his clothes and came out of his house. On 10.09.2010, the complainant, prepared the food, as per her routine and carried the same to Dilip Singh’s fields for her husband between 10:00 to 11:00 am. When she reached the field, she did not find her husband in the hut situated therein. Flies were buzzing on the cot. When she went closer, she saw blood stains on the cot. Her husband was nowhere to be seen. In the meantime, her son Motiram also came around. Both of them made a search for Sugnaram in the nearby fields. On 11.09.2010, in the morning at about 8 O’clock, they reached the dry well in the field of Prahlad Meghwal nearby the way to Ambuja Cement Factory and sensed foul smell coming therefrom. She informed Dilip Singh and Narpat Singh who got the well checked thoroughly whereupon it was discovered that the dead body of Sugnaram was lying therein. The first informant cast a suspicion that the accused appellant Champalal and his companions had conspired together to murder her husband Sugnaram. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.142/2010 (Ex.P/28) was registered at the PS Raas for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC. The SHO PS Raas proceeded to the place of incident. The dead body of deceased Sugnaram was taken out from the well. The site inspection report was prepared. The blood stained soil and a pair of female footwear were collected from the place of incident. The accused appellant Champalal and co-accused Munni Devi were arrested. The accused

¶22

(4 of 17)

¶23

[CRLA-844/2015]

¶24

appellant allegedly supplied information to the investigating officer under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in furtherance whereof, the investigating officer proceeded to recover a blood stained lathi. The lathi, so recovered at the instance of the accused appellant and the blood stained cotton strip of the cot on which Shri Sugnaram was allegedly murdered as well as the blood stained soil collected from nearby the well from where his dead body was recovered were forwarded to the FSL for chemical and serological analysis from where a report Ex.P/23 was received as per which, the clothes of the accused appellant, the lathi recovered from him and the articles alleged to be stained with the blood of the deceased tested positive for the presence of ‘B’ Group human blood. On the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded to file charge sheet against the accused appellant and the co-accused Munni Devi for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC. Since the offences were sessions triable, the case was committed and transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, Pali for trial.

¶25

The trial judge, framed charges for the above-mentioned offences against both accused persons who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 50 documents to prove its case. The accused, upon being examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence denied the same and claimed that Sugnaram was in a habit of consuming liquor and he might have fallen into the well in an inebriated condition. After hearing the arguments advanced by

¶26

(5 of 17)

¶27

[CRLA-844/2015]

¶28

the prosecution and the defence and upon appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to acquit the co-accused Munni Devi from all the charges but the accused appellant herein was convicted and sentenced as above by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal.

¶29

Shri B.S. Rathore, learned counsel representing the appellant vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated and based on conjectural aspersions. He took us through the statements of material prosecution witnesses i.e., PW.1 Radha (first informant), PW.4 Smt. Ajodiya (daughter of the deceased), PW.5 Ratnaram (father of the deceased and the appellant), PW.6 Sukhi Devi (Mother of the deceased and the appellant) and PW.10 Motiram (son of the deceased) and urged that a careful appraisal of the statements of these material prosecution witnesses would be enough to satisfy the Court that the deposition made by them on the aspect of the prior enmity between the appellant and the deceased Sugnaram; the alleged motive attributed to the appellant in reference to the alleged quarrel over an issue of breaking of earthen pot and the alleged incident of the accused following the deceased on 09.09.2010 is totally false and fabricated. He contended that there is no truth whatsoever in the conjectural case set up by the prosecution witness that the breaking of the earthen pot provided motive to the appellant for murdering the deceased. He urged that the incident was too trivial and far too insignificant so as to believe that the same could provide motive to the accused appellant for murdering his own brother. He contended that the parents of the accused and

¶30

(6 of 17)

¶31

[CRLA-844/2015]

¶32

the appellant used to reside with Sugnaram. The appellant had on his own, built up his own residence and developed an agricultural field whereas the deceased Sugnaram was cultivating a field taken on rent and thus, the family of the deceased Sugnaram bore a severe jealousy against the accused appellant Champa Lal. The deceased Sugnaram was in a habit of consuming liquor. The well, where he fell has a very small parapet wall and in all probability, he must have accidentally fell down into the well while he was under the influence of liquor. He drew the Court’s attention to the statement of medical jurist PW.15 Dr. Kanhaiyalal Sirwi, who was one of the members of the Medical Board, which carried out postmortem upon the dead body of the deceased Sugnaram and issued the post mortem report (Ex.P/25) and urged that his testimony completely falsifies the evidence of the interested and partisan witnesses who have cast conjectural aspersions that the accused carried an axe and lathi with him while following the deceased Sugnaram and that the deceased was murdered by the use of these weapons. Shri Rathore urged that as per the post-mortem report and the medical officer’s testimony, only a solitary ante-mortem lacerated wound ad measuring 8 cm x 3 cm was noticed on the skull region of the deceased Sugnaram underneath which the frontal and the temporal bones were fractured. He urged that when PW.15 Dr.Kanhaiya Lal Sirwi was cross-examined, he admitted in clear terms that the injuries noticed on the dead body of Sugnaram could have been caused by collision with the protending stone during a fall into a well. The Doctor also admitted that the injuries could not have been caused by a lathi or by an axe and that the deceased was in an inebriated condition and as

¶33

(7 of 17)

¶34

[CRLA-844/2015]

¶35

such, his viscera was forwarded to the FSL for analysis. Viscera examination report (Ex.P/24) in which a specific result of analysis is noted that the viscera of the deceased gave positive test for presence of ethyl alcohol. He thus, urged that it is writ large on the face of record that the deceased Sugnaram consumed liquor and accidentally fell down into the well in an inebriated condition. He urged that the fact that a solitary ante mortem injury which proved fatal, was noticed by the medical board on the body of the deceased completely destroys the prosecution case regarding the accused appellant having killed the deceased Sugnaram and then having thrown the dead body into the well. He further submitted that the FIR of the alleged incident dated 09.09.2010 was lodged as late as on 11.09.2010; the appellant was apprehended on 12.09.2010 and thus, he had ample time at his disposal and would have definitely destroyed the worthless incriminating articles viz. his blood stained clothes and the blood stained lathi; if at all, he was the perpetrator of the offence. He also drew the Court’s attention to the statements of the concerned police witnesses and urged that there are grave discrepancies in the statements of these witnesses regarding the safe keeping of the articles right from the time they were seized till the time same were received at the FSL. He thus, urged that the evidence of recoveries allegedly made at the instance of the accused appellant, apart from being unbelievable, also do not provide any inference regarding his involvement in the crime and hence, Shri Rathore implored the Court to accept the appeal and acquit the accused appellant of the charges.

¶36

(8 of 17)

¶37

[CRLA-844/2015]

¶38

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned defence counsel. He urged that the fact regarding the accused being on inimical terms with the deceased is well established by the statements of the father and mother of the deceased and the appellant. He thus urged that the motive imputed to the appellant for commission of the offence is established by convincing and clinching evidence. He further submitted that the evidence of Radha (PW.1) clearly establishes the fact that there was a quarrel between two brothers over the issue of breaking of earthen pot whereafter the accused threatened the deceased of dire consequences. On the fateful night, the deceased Sugnaram left for his field and little later, the accused appellant was seen following him armed with a lathi and an axe. The deceased did not return home nor he was seen in the field in the next morning whereas the accused was seen coming back and his clothes were stained with blood. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased Sugnaram was recovered from inside the well with numerous injuries caused by a blunt weapon. The accused appellant voluntarily gave information to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and in furtherance thereof, got recovered a blood stained lathi and his blood stained clothes from his house. These articles and the blood stained cotton strip of the cot on which the deceased was sleeping and the blood stained soil collected from nearby the well in which the dead body of Shri Sugnaram was recovered were all forwarded to FSL for comparison from where a positive report was received that all these articles tested positive for the presence of ‘B’ Group human blood. Thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the

¶39

(9 of 17)

¶40

[CRLA-844/2015]

¶41

chain of circumstances viz motive, last seen and the blood stained recoveries made at the instance of the accused is complete in all aspects pointing invariably to the guilt of the accused appellant. As per him, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment of conviction.

¶42

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have carefully appreciated the evidence available on record. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the prosecution case as against the appellant is based on flimsy and far-fetching pieces of circumstantial evidence. The following circumstances have been put-forth by the prosecution in its endeavour to prove the charges against the appellant:-

¶43

(1) Motive;

¶44

(2) The accused following the deceased on the fateful night armed with a lathi and an axe;

¶45

(3) The threat given by the accused that he would either kill Sugnaram or would kill himself;

¶46

(4) Recovery of blood stained clothes and the lathi by the IO made at the instance of accused during investigation;

¶47

(5) Recovery of the dead body from the well from the field of Prahlad Meghwal.

¶48

A majority of these allegations are based on evidence of first informant PW.1 Radha who alleged in her evidence that Champa Lal and Sugnaram were not on talking terms with each other. On

¶49

(10 of 17)

¶50

[CRLA-844/2015]

¶51

09.09.2010, her daughter went to the house of accused appellant Champa Lal for playing and accidently, broke the earthen pot. The appellant Champa Lal started hurling abuses owing to this incident. The deceased Sugnaram told him not to do so and buy a new one from the potter. However, the accused appellant Champa Lal did not desist and continued to hurl abuses. Her husband went to the agricultural field of Dilip Singh to guard the crops at about 9 O’Clock. At that time, the accused appellant Champalal was hurling abuses sitting outside his house and was sharpening an axe. One and a half hours later, the accused appellant Champalal was seen carrying an axe and lathi and going towards the field of Dilip Singh. She also claimed that on the next morning, the accused appellant Champalal returned to his home and drenched in blood. He went inside his house and after changing his clothes, came outside. She categorically stated that nobody saw the activities of the accused appellant because their houses are located outside the village. In cross examination, the eye-witness admitted that a litigation regarding a plot is going on between them and the accused appellant Champa Lal for the last five years. PW.5 Ratna Ram and PW.6 Sukhi Devi (Parents of the accused appellant and the deceased) had filed a case against the accused appellant Champa Lal. In her cross examination, she was confronted with her police statement (Exhibit D/1) regarding numerous omissions/exaggerations/improvements and the witness could not explain the same. The witness made further exaggerations in her cross-examination alleging that the marks of dragging and trail of blood were visible at the place of incident. She also alleged that she found pieces of bones of her husband’s skull lying in the hut

¶52

(11 of 17)

¶53

[CRLA-844/2015]

¶54

and gave the same to the Investigating Officer. However, the Investigating Officer did not note any such facts in the site inspection report nor did in evidence he state so. The witness was also asked a pertinent question that if she had seen the accused appellant, following her husband, on the night of 09.09.2010 and when her husband was not seen alive on the next morning, why she failed to lodge the report. The witness could not explain this significant circumstance.

¶55

Having gone through the statement of the witness Smt. Radha in detail, we are of the firm view that her testimony is full of exaggerations and embellishments. In this regard, we are tempted to refer to the evidence of medical jurist PW.15 Kanhaiyalal Sirwi, who categorically stated that when autopsy was conducted on the body of the deceased Shri Sugnaram by the medical board, only a solitary lacerated wound was noticed on the skull region underneath which there were fractures of the temporal and frontal bones.

¶56

In view of this categoric statement of the medical jurist, we do not find an iota of truth in the statement of PW.1 Radha and we have strong reasons to arrive at this conclusion. Firstly, we feel that the incident of breaking of earthen pot at the hands of a child is far too insignificant and trivial to believe that it could provide motive to the accused appellant for murdering his own brother howsoever inimical their relations were. Secondly, we find that PW.1 Radha has attempted to give a highly exaggerated version

¶57

(12 of 17)

¶58

[CRLA-844/2015]

¶59

regarding clothes of the accused appellant being blood stained etc. In view of the clear unimpeachable medical evidence as deposed by PW.15 Dr. Kanhaiyalal Sirwi that a solitary lacerated wound was seen on the skull of the deceased, manifestly, there was no chance that the accused appellant would have got any significant quantity of blood on his clothes so that PW.1 Smt. Radha could have seen blood dripping from the body of the accused appellant. Manifestly, the statement of Smt. Radha is nothing but a bundle of lies on this aspect. We find that if at all, the relations between the two brothers were so inimical that one was after the blood of the another and if the accused was seen Shri Sugna Ram on 09.09.2010 with weapons, after having given him threat to kill, then there was no reason as to why PW.1 Smt Radha did not approach the police for reporting the matter when her husband did not return home on the next morning and blood stains were seen in the hut where he was sleeping. By way of a natural conduct, she should have reported the matter to the police immediately. The reasons for the parents of the deceased Sugnaram and accusedappellant Champalal, Ratna Ram (PW.5) and Smt.Sukhi Devi (PW.6) giving evidence against the accused appellant is also apparent because they were living with the deceased Sugnaram and a land dispute in the form of litigation was pending between the parties. Thus, the parents too had a strong motive for giving false evidence against the accused appellant.

¶60

Having concluded that the evidence of material witnesses referred to supra is highly contradictory, vacillating and full of embellishments while deposing against the accused on the aspect

¶61

(13 of 17)

¶62

[CRLA-844/2015]

¶63

of motive and so called threat etc., we are totally convinced by the submission of learned defence counsel that the recoveries became redundant when medical evidence is seen. Apparently, the aspersion of Smt. Radha (PW.1) in the FIR as well as in her evidence was that the accused followed the deceased while carrying an axe as well as a lathi with him. The axe would definitely be a better choice of weapon for achieving the objective of murder as compared to lathi. However, as is clear from the evidence of medical jurist PW.15 Kanhaiyalal Sirwi, a solitary ante-mortem blunt weapon injury was noticed by the medical board while conducting autopsy on the body of the deceased Sugnaram. The weapon of the offence allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused was not shown to the doctor in his evidence and no suggestion was given by the prosecution to the said witness that the solitary lacerated wound noticed on the body of deceased could be caused by the blow of the lathi or an axe. On the contrary, the defence gave a clear suggestion to the doctor eliciting a categoric reply that the solitary lacerated wound noticed on the body of the deceased could possibly be caused if the deceased collided with a stone while falling into the well. The doctor also made a categoric admission that this injury could not have been caused by the blow of lathi or an axe. In arguendo, even if it be assumed that the deceased Sugnaram was first murdered by the blow of lathi or an axe and was then thrown into the well, two circumstances were bound to be noticed by the medical board:- (1) Number of injuries would have been greater and (2) the dead body would have shown presence of post mortem injuries.

¶64

(14 of 17)

¶65

[CRLA-844/2015]

¶66

Apparently, none of these circumstances were noticed by the medical board while conducting post-mortem upon the dead body of the deceased Sugnaram. The medical board suspected that the deceased was under the influence of liquor and thus preserved the viscera and forwarded the same to the FSL from where a report was received indicating the presence of ethyl alcohol. Thus, we are convinced that the deceased was undoubtedly moving around under the influence of alcohol and he accidentally fell into the well and received the fatal injuries by colliding with some blunt object in an accidental fall in the well. These conclusions are fully supported by the medical evidence and therefore, the finding noted by the IO in the site inspection report (Ex.P/3) that the cotton strip of the cot was stained with blood and that blood stains were visible on the ground nearby are totally falsified. There is no hesitation for this Court to hold that the solitary lacerated wound noticed on the skull region of the deceased was caused by colliding with some blunt object inside the well and the conjectural theory of the prosecution that the deceased was first assaulted by a lathi/axe and then his dead body was thrown inside the well is totally unsustainable. It is very significant to note that the Investigating Officer did not prepare any independent site inspection report of the place (well) from which the dead body of Sugnaram was recovered. However, he allegedly prepared the site inspection plan (Ex.P/9) on the basis of information supplied by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this site inspection plan, no significant circumstances involved in the commission of any offence are noticeable. The Investigating Officer also claimed in his

¶67

(15 of 17)

¶68

[CRLA-844/2015]

¶69

evidence that he recorded information of the accused appellant Champalal under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.P/35).

¶70

The articles recovered in furtherance of the information supplied by the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were allegedly sent to the FSL for chemical and serological examination from where a report Ex.P/23 was received stating that the blood stained Shirt and Dhoti found on the body of the deceased, cotton tape of the cot, lathi, the pant of the accused appellant and the Ghaghra of the co-accused Munni Devi all tested positive for the presence of “B” group human blood. However, as we have already held that the evidence of medical officer clearly rules out the conjectural prosecution aspersion that the injury noticed on the body of Shri Sugnaram was caused by the blow of a lathi or an axe and since the solitary injury noticed on his dead body was unquestionably the result of fall into the well, manifestly, the recoveries made by the Investigating Officer at the instance of the accused appellant become redundant. The case at hand is a classic example of the legal tenet that “a man may lie but the circumstances will not”.

¶71

In view of what has been discussed above, the material witnesses from the complainant party viz. PW.1 Radha (first informant), PW.4 Smt. Ajodiya (daughter of the deceased), PW.5 Ratnaram (father of the deceased and the appellant), PW.6 Sukhi Devi (Mother of the deceased and the appellant) and PW.10 Motiram (son of the deceased) have spoken a bundle of lies while attributing allegations of motive, threat, last seen and recoveries to the accused appellant. Their evidence is tarnished and full of

¶72

(16 of 17)

¶73

[CRLA-844/2015]

¶74

embellishments and falsifies. For this false and fabricated evidence, the accused has suffered incarceration in jail for a period of more than eight and a half years.

¶75

Be that as it may. In view of the conclusions drawn hereinabove, we are of the firm opinion that the learned trial court committed fundamental errors while appreciating evidence and recording the finding of guilt against the accused appellant herein. The evidence available on record is totally fabricated and cooked up. The links in the chain of circumstances sought to be utilized by the prosecution are hopelessly severed and by no stretch of imagination can a satisfaction be recorded that the same invariably point towards the guilt of the accused appellant.

¶76

As an upshot of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 30.06.2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali in Sessions Case No.28/2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused appellant is acquitted of all the charges. He is in custody. He shall be released from prison forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

¶77

However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. the accused appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period

¶78

(17 of 17)

¶79

[CRLA-844/2015]

¶80

of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a special leave petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.

¶81

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶82

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶83

Sudhir Asopa

Champa Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Champa 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

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanheya Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Raimal S/O Obaji, Vs State of Rajasthan

Devendra Singh Vs State

Vnaram Vs State

Pratap S/O Sena, Vs the State of Rajasthan