Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DAILYLAW 1851 (RAJ)

Dhulji v. State of Rajasthan

2016-12-19

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant, Dhulji @ Dhulishwar, under Section 374 of Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 13th of June, 2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Banswara (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'trial court') in Session Case No. 22/2007, whereby the accused appellant was held guilty for offence under Sections 302 and 404 of IPC and following sentence was passed against him: "302 of IPC- Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. 404 of IPC- Three Years' Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment." 2. As per facts of the case, complainant (PW.12), Kanhaiya @ Kannu, submitted a written report (Ex. P/14) before the S.H.O., Police Station- Kotwali, Banswara, in which was it alleged that that dead body of my daughter, namely, Kalu, was found in "Surpada Nada" on 25.01.2007. The police after recovery of dead body handed over the dead body after postmortem to him and after receiving the dead body from the police, I have performed the cremation of my daughter. After cremation, I came back and I made enquiry from my family members and neighbours for the cause of death. Upon enquiry, an information was received that my daughter, Kalu, went on 18.01.2007 at Banswara, where my brother Kanji S/o. Veerji, saw her (Kali) along with accused appellant Dhulji @ Dhulishwar. However, the aforesaid fact was not disclosed to Kanji to me earlier and upon making enquiry about accused, Dhulji, it has come to his knowledge that from last 7-8 days, Dhulji is also missing from his house. Upon search when Dhulji found, enquiry was made from him with regard to my daughter that lastly she was seen with him (accused appellant), the accused appellant trembled and he said that I do not know about Kali. The complainant found that there were injuries upon the face of accused, viz. injury near the eye and right side of nose and so also upon the chick. Upon further enquiry made from accused appellant, Dhulji as to how these injuries were caused, he said that I fell down, therefore, injuries were caused to him. The complainant found that there were injuries upon the face of accused, viz. injury near the eye and right side of nose and so also upon the chick. Upon further enquiry made from accused appellant, Dhulji as to how these injuries were caused, he said that I fell down, therefore, injuries were caused to him. The complainant further stated that I have serious doubt that my daughter, Kali, might have been killed by Dhulji by throttling, therefore, action may be taken against him. 3. In the FIR it was also narrated that when my daughter left the house on 18.01.2007 at that time, she was wearing "Ghaghara" and "Polka" of "Mehnadi" colour. It was further stated that his daughter was wearing some silver ornaments in her ears, viz. tops so also, one silver "Sankli", "Kandora" and other ornaments were also wore by her. It was further stated that in her hand, there was a wrist watch of his daughter, upon which his name "Kannu Ghantala" was written, however, at the time of recovery of dead body, those ornaments were not found upon the body of deceased. 4. Upon the aforesaid complaint (Ex. P/14), formal FIR No. 45/2007 (Ex. P/15) was registered on 27.01.2007 at Police Station Kotwali, for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 5. It is also relevant to mention here that before filing the aforesaid written complaint on 27.01.2007, an information was given by PW.12, Kanhaiya @ Kanu, verbally with regard to dead body of deceased Kali, in the "Nala" and in that information although name of accused appellant was not mentioned, but only information as given by the complainant to the police with regard to recovery of dead body of his daughter. 6. After registration of the FIR, investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, the accused appellant was arrested vide Arrest Memo (Ex. P/21) on 27.01.2007 in the presence of two witnesses and after arrest upon the information furnished by the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, about the ornaments, which were mortgaged by him in the shop known as "Vardhman Jewellers" of one Rakesh S/o. Mangilal (PW.9), so also, another information was given by him u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act with regard to the fact that some of silver ornaments, viz. "Kandora", pair of "Payjeb", which are also mortgaged at the shop of Nimesh Mehta S/o. Sh. "Kandora", pair of "Payjeb", which are also mortgaged at the shop of Nimesh Mehta S/o. Sh. Nandkishore (PW.7), situated at Mahalaxmi Chowk, Banswara. One more information was given u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act with regard to mortgaging of silver "Juda" with one Gaurav Doshi (PW.5). Upon the aforesaid information, recovery of articles were made vide Ex. P/5 from the shop of Gaurav Doshi and after recovery of silver ornaments, photostat copy of the "Bahikhata" (Books of Accounts) of Gaurav Doshi, vide Ex. P/6 was taken in possession. Similarly, the money lenders licence of Gaurav Doshi was also obtained in the investigation vide Ex. P/7. Money lending licence of Nimesh Mehta was also obtained vide Ex. P/8 and recovery of silver ornaments was made from the shop of Nimesh Mehta vide Ex. P/9 along photostat copy of details maintained in the "Bahikhata" vide Ex. P/10A. One silver "Sankli" was recovered from Vardhman Jewellers vide Ex. P/11. 7. The postmortem report (Ex. P12) was also obtained for investigation. The accused appellant was medically examined and injury report (Ex. P/13) was given by the medical jurist of Govt. Hospital, Banswara. The identification of the ornaments was made before the Tehsildar, Banswara vide Ex. P/16. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 404 and 376 of IPC in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara, who committed the case for trial to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, from where the case was transferred for trial to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (FT), Banswara. 8. The learned trial court after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties framed charges against the accused appellant for the offence u/s. 302 and 404 of IPC and commenced the trial. 9. The accused appellant denied the charges levelled against him and, thereafter the learned trial court recorded the statements of 10 prosecution witnesses. 24 documents were exhibited from the prosecution side. 10. After recording the evidence of prosecution, statements of the accused appellant were recorded u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations levelled by the prosecution and stated that I have not killed Kalu. I am pursuing my business of supply flower in Banswara. At no point of time, Kalu came to my house. All the witnesses are telling lie. I am pursuing my business of supply flower in Banswara. At no point of time, Kalu came to my house. All the witnesses are telling lie. At the time of cremation I was present and at that time the Circle Inspector caught me and taken me to police station. Deceased, Kali, was my niece, therefore, there was no question to act wrong with her. It is also stated that on 17.01.2007 I went to my in-laws' house to attend the marriage function of my brother-in-law, Naveen at 'Ghate-Ki-Naal' and till 19.01.2007 I remained there with my wife. No evidence in defence was produced by the accused appellant. 11. The learned trial court after recording the evidence of both the sides finally heard the arguments and convicted the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 404 of IPC while acquitting him from the offence under Section 201 of IPC and passed the sentence mentioned above. 12. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is no eye witness of the incident and the entire prosecution case is based upon the circumstantial evidence of last seen and recovery of ornaments as per information given by the accused appellant. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecution has required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but admittedly in this case, on 18.01.2007, deceased, Kalu, left her house to went to her maternal uncle, but did not come back for a week, however, in this period, no report with respect to missing of Kali was filed by the complainant in the police station; and later on when dead body of Kali was recovered, again information was given with regard to recovery of dead body to the police, in which also no allegation was levelled by the complainant against the accused appellant. However, later on a written complaint was filed, in which fact of last seen was disclosed, upon which the accused appellant was arrested. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per settled principle of law if the prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence, then, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the complete chain of evidence so as to hold accused appellant guilty. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per settled principle of law if the prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence, then, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the complete chain of evidence so as to hold accused appellant guilty. But, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because for eight days, no information was given by the complainant to the police with regard to the fact that his daughter was missing; and later on, on the basis of suspicion, the FIR was lodged against the appellant, therefore, it is a case in which the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 14. With regard to evidence of recovery of ornaments, it is submitted that although in the written complaint disclosure about silver ornaments, which were wore by the deceased was made when she left the house on 18.01.2007 but it is also one of the important fact that even though the complainant averred in the FIR that his name "Kannu" was appearing on the wrist watch, and other ornaments but in the recovered ornaments no name was found. Therefore, the evidence of recovery of the ornaments deserves to be rejected because such type of evidence cannot be relied upon so as to hold accused appellant guilty on the basis of recovery of ornaments. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that it is a case in which on both the grounds i.e. last seen and recovery, the accused appellant cannot be held guilty because it has not been proved by the prosecution, therefore, the finding of the learned trial court so as to hold accused guilty for offence under Section 302 and 404 IPC deserves to be quashed. 16. Lastly it is argued that allegation of prosecution for committing rape was also there but no charge was framed u/s. 376 of IPC against the accused appellant. In view of above, it is submitted that judgment impugned may kindly be quashed because the appellant failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 17. 16. Lastly it is argued that allegation of prosecution for committing rape was also there but no charge was framed u/s. 376 of IPC against the accused appellant. In view of above, it is submitted that judgment impugned may kindly be quashed because the appellant failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 17. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that it is a case in which the prosecution has led trustworthy and reliable evidence of last seen, which is evident from the statements of witness PW.8, Kanji, who in his evidence, has categorically stated before the court that by his eyes he saw the deceased along with Kali in Banswara. While inviting attention of the Court towards the statement of witnesses of recovery, who were the shopkeepers viz. Gaurav Doshi (PW.5), Nimesh Mehta (PW.7) and Rakesh (PW.9) it is argued that these witnesses were the witnesses of recovery and they have not only proved the recovery of ornaments, which were mortgaged by the appellant with them, but also gave documentary evidence that in their "Bahikhata" (Books of Accounts) the details with regard to mortgage by accused appellant was recorded and the signatures of accused appellant were also appearing in their books. Therefore, on both the grounds the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no force/strength in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. More so, there is ample evidence, upon which the learned trial court held the accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 and 404 of IPC. 18. In view of above, it is submitted that there is no force in the appeal filed by the accused appellant, hence, the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 19. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have thoroughly examined and scanned the statements of prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence placed on record. 20. It is true that there is disclosure in the written complaint submitted by the complainant (Ex. P/14) that his daughter, Kali, left the house on 18.01.2007 and went to her maternal house, and after cremation when enquiry was made by him about her death. 20. It is true that there is disclosure in the written complaint submitted by the complainant (Ex. P/14) that his daughter, Kali, left the house on 18.01.2007 and went to her maternal house, and after cremation when enquiry was made by him about her death. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that after cremation the brother of the complainant, Kanji (PW.8) informed that 7-8 days before I saw deceased, Kali with accused appellant Dhulji in Banswara. Upon asking question to the accused, he became over conscious and refused to accept the said fact. An enquiry was also made with regard to injuries upon his face, it was stated by the accused appellant that I fell down but upon strong suspicion the complaint was filed by the complainant before the police against the accused appellant. 21. After registration of the FIR, the accused appellant was arrested and upon 3 information/s furnished by him under Section 27 of Evidence Act, recovery of ornaments and other belonging to deceased were recovered vide Ex. P/22 dated 28.01.2007, Ex. P/23 dated 29.01.2007 and Ex. P/24 dated 29.01.2007 from the shops of shopkeepers, namely, Gaurav Doshi (PW.5), Nimesh Mehta (PW.7) and Rakesh (PW.9). All these witnesses have categorically stated before the court that silver ornaments were mortgaged by the accused appellant and in lieu thereof he took money and to prove this fact, copy of "Bahikhata" (Ex. P/5A, Ex. P/10A) were given to the investigating officer by these witnesses. The ornaments which were recovered from the shop of PW.5, Gaurav Doshi, PW.7 Nimesh Mehta and PW.9 Rakesh, and the ornaments were identified in the identification proceedings, which is evident from Ex. P/16. 22. The Tehsildar, Sh. Chandra Shekhar (PW.13) before whom the articles/ornaments were identified, categorically state before the court that at the time of identification, the complainant Kanu, identified the ornaments recovered as per information given by the accused appellant. 23. Upon perusal of statement of PW.13 Chandra Shekhar, we have no hesitation to accept the fact that recovered silver ornaments were identified by the complainant and those ornaments were belonging to Kalu, deceased, which were wearing when she left the house. 24. We have also perused the statements of investigating officer Veera Ram Choudhary (PW.17), who was posted as S.H.O., Police Station- Kotwali, the said witness has categorically proved the entire investigation conducted by him. 24. We have also perused the statements of investigating officer Veera Ram Choudhary (PW.17), who was posted as S.H.O., Police Station- Kotwali, the said witness has categorically proved the entire investigation conducted by him. It is very important to observe that in the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the following explanation was given by the accused appellant with regard to his presence which reads as infra: - HINDI 25. Upon perusal of above statement, it is obvious that the accused appellant has stated that from 17.01.2007 to 19.01.2017 he was the residence of his in-laws in connection marriage of his brother-in-law, Naveen, along with his wife, however, none of the witnesses were produced before the court to prove this fact, which was disclosed by him in the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 26. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt because as per statement of Kanji (PW.8), the deceased was lastly seen in the company of the accused appellant at bus stand of Banswara, which cannot be disbelieved in contrary of any contra evidence led by the accused appellant. Similarly, the witness of recovery viz. PW.7 Nimesh Mehta, PW.5 Gaurav Doshi and PW.9 Rakesh, have categorically stated that ornaments were mortgaged by the accused appellant with them and the money was taken by him, which is evident from the documentary evidence in the form of Photostat copy of "Bahikhata" (Books of Accounts) viz. Ex. P/6A and Ex. P/10A. 27. We have perused the Ex. P/10A (Copy of "Bahikhata") and, so also, Arrest Memo (Ex. P/21). Both these documents bear the signatures of accused appellant and the same are resembling with each other, therefore, there is no question to disbelieve the prosecution evidence, which has been taken into consideration by the trial court so as to convict the accused appellant for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 404 of IPC. 28. P/21). Both these documents bear the signatures of accused appellant and the same are resembling with each other, therefore, there is no question to disbelieve the prosecution evidence, which has been taken into consideration by the trial court so as to convict the accused appellant for commission of offence under Sections 302 and 404 of IPC. 28. In our opinion, the learned trial court has properly discussed the entire circumstantial evidence of last seen and recovery of ornaments of the deceased and thereafter gave finding against the appellant for committing offences under Sections 302 and 404 of IPC, therefore, no error has been committed by the trial court so as to convict the accused appellant because the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for offence under Sections 302 and 404 of IPC. 29. In view of above discussion, the instant appeal filed by the appellant Dhulji @ Dhulishwar is hereby dismissed.