Bhanwra Ram vs State on 18 August, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 891 / 2008

Bhanwra Ram S/o Sh. Kheta Ram, by caste Dholi, aged 30 years,
Resident of Bhoongra, Police Station Shergarh, District Jodhpur.

[Presently lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur]

—-Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan

—-Respondent

__

For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.K. Saini.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Kachhawaha, PP.

__

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

JUDGMENT

[Per Hon’ble Mr. G.K. Vyas, J.]
Date of Judgment: 18/08/2017

In this criminal appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. by the

accused appellant, Bhamwra Ram, the judgment dated 21 st of

November, 2008 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT)

No.1, Jodhpur is under challenge, whereby the learned trial court

convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC

in Session Case No.184/2007 arising out of F.I.R. No.72/2007 of

Police Station Shergarh, and passed sentence for life

imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation

to undergo one year’s additional imprisonment.

(2 of 11)
[CRLA-891/2008]

As per facts of the case a written report (Ex.P/6) was

submitted by one Surta Ram (PW.4), father of deceased, Meera

Devi, in which following allegations were submitted by him, which

reads as under:

“lo
s k eas
Jheku Fkkuns kj lkgc
iqfyl Fkkuk “kjs x+

Jheku th]
fuons u gS fd ljq rkjke S/o fgerkjke tkfr ky s h lkfdu erkMs k+
fd vtZ gS fd ejs h nks cPph;ka ehjk o fuca q ds vkt ls 10 lky igys
[krs kjke S/o jkepUnz tkfr ky s h fuoklh Hkxaw jk ds iq Hkoa jkjke ok
vkes kjke dks C;kgh FkhA mlds nks lky ckn vkes kjke dk Hkoa jkjke ok
mlds ekrkfirk [krs kjke “kk;rh pkjkas us ejs h yMd
+ h fuca q ds lkFk ekjihV
dj mls tyk fn;k FkkA
ml fjikZsV ij Hkoa jkjkevkes kjke muds ekrkfirk
[krs kjke”kk;rh dk pkyku gks pqdkA mlds ckn 45 efgus ckn tekur
ij fjgk gks x;s FkAs
ejs h yMd + h ehjk buds lkFk gh xkoa Hkqxjk eas jgrh FkhA og ejs s
ikl erkMs k+ feyus dks ugha Hkt
s rs FkAs
dy rk- 26@9@007 jkr dks djhc 10 cts 34 vkneh xkoa
Hkqxjk ls thi }kjk erkMs k+ vk;s ok eqs dgk fd rqEgkjh yMd
+ h ehjk xkoa
ds ckgj Vkda s eas iMd
+ j ej pqdh gAS
bRryk feyus ij eaS xkao ds eq[kh;k jkeflga ] xkfs oUnz flga HkkVh]
vukis flga ] vejk flga roa j o tBs qflga fiMh;kj dks yd
s j Hkqxrjk igqp a k
xkoa ds ckgj Vkd
a s ds mij ckgj ejs h cPph ehjk dh yk”k iMh+ FkhA
erkMs k+ eq[kh;k }kjk xkoa ds Hkqxjk fuokfl;ks ls iwNrkN dh lUrq’V
tokc ugha feyus ij ejs h vtZ gS fd bu pkjkas [krs kjke] “kk;rh] Hkoa jkjke]
vkes kjke ds }kjk ejs h yMd + h ehjk dks bruk ij”s kku dj fn;k fd mls
ejus dks etcjw gkus k iMkA
fygktk ejs h vtZ gS fd bl ?kVuk dk lgh lkj fudyok dj pkjkas
dks l[r ltk fnykoAs ”

(3 of 11)
[CRLA-891/2008]

Upon the aforesaid complaint filed on 27.09.2007 at 09.15

AM, the S.H.O., Police Station- Shergarh, registered an FIR

No.72/2007 under Section 498A and 306/34 IPC and commenced

the investigation.

The S.H.O. after registration of formal FIR (Ex.P/19) went

on the spot and prepared site plan (Ex.P/7). The details of the

dead body of deceased Meera Devi wife of the appellant, were also

recorded vide Ex.P/8. The postmortem of the dead of deceased

Meera Devi was conducted at Primary Health Centre, Shergarh, on

27.09.2007 at 11.55 AM by the Medical Board, in which opinion

was given by the medical board that deceased Meera Devi died

due to suffocation leading to asphyxia. The drowning was found to

be ante mortem in nature, however, the viscera was observed for

chemical examination of any common poison. After postmortem,

the dead body of the deceased was handed over to her father-in-

law Kheta Ram vide Ex.P/9 on 27.09.2007 itself for cremation.

The accused appellant was arrested on 03.10.2007 at 05.00 PM

vide arrest memo (Ex.P/10).

After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed

against the accused appellant for offence under Sections 498A and

306 of IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Balesar, from where

the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge for trial.

The learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur thereafter transferred the

case for trial to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No.1,

Jodhpur.

The learned trial court after providing opportunity of hearing

framed charges against the accused appellant for offence under
(4 of 11)
[CRLA-891/2008]

Section 498A and 306 IPC and in the alternative under Section

302 IPC but accused appellant denied the charges framed against

him and prayed for trial.

In the trial, statements of 13 prosecution witnesses were

recorded and thereafter statements of accused appellant were

recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he said that

accidently Meera Devi slipped in the water tank and died due to

drowning.

The learned trial court granted an opportunity to the

appellant lead evidence in defence and the appellant examined

four defence witnesses viz. DW.1- Bhikharam, DW.2-Kheta Ram

(father of the accused appellant), Dw.-3 Jagdish Prasad and

DW.4- Omaram.

The learned trial court thereafter heard final arguments and

while considering the medical and other oral evidence produced by

the prosecution, vide judgment dated 21.011.2008 proceeded to

convict the accused appellant for offence u/s 302 IPC and

sentenced him for imprisonment for life along with fine of

Rs.5000/-.

While assailing the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for

the appellant vehemently argued that whole prosecution story is

false and concocted by the complainant for the reason that earlier

the real sister of deceased Meera Devi viz. Smt. Nimbu Devi, who

was married to appellant’s brother Oma Ram, died due to burn

injuries, for which an FIR was registered, but after trial Oma Ram

and other family members were acquitted from the charge of

murder of Nimbu Devi. Further argument of the learned counsel
(5 of 11)
[CRLA-891/2008]

for the appellant is that the day on which the occurrence took

place, the appellant was out of home and incident was reported to

him when he came back. It is further submitted that Meera Devi

committed suicide due to bad behaviour of her in-laws because

they were not calling Meera Devi for last eight years but

complainant gave the colour of incident of suicide to murder. In

fact, there was no demand of dowry so also the relationship of the

accused with his wife Meera Devi were cordial and there was no

dispute in between them, which is proved by him while adducing

evidence of four defence witnesses.

The crux of the argument of learned counsel for the

appellant is that whole prosecution story is fabricated story

because there is no evidence of intention or motive, so also, there

is no evidence on record to prove that any quarrel took place in

between husband and wife. Therefore, the police filed charge

sheet under Section 306 and 498A IPC but the learned trial court

framed charge under Section 302 IPC in alternative while framing

charge u/s 498A and 306 IPC. The contention of the counsel for

the appellant is that incident took place in the back of the

appellant, when he was not present in the house but the trial

court without considering the evidence in proper manner

erroneously convicted the accused appellant for committing

offence under Section 302 of IPC, therefore, the judgment

impugned may kindly be quashed and the accused appellant may

kindly be acquitted from the charges levelled against him under

Section 302 of IPC.

(6 of 11)
[CRLA-891/2008]

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued

that there is no error in the finding given by the learned trial court

so as to convict the accused appellant for offence u/s 302 IPC

because marriage of two sister viz. Nimbu Devi and Meera Devi

(deceased) was solemnized with two real brothers viz. Oma Ram

and Bhanwra Ram respectively and before four years, Nimbu Devi

died due to burn injuries, therefore, an FIR was registered against

family members of the accused appellant, in which Kheta Ram,

father of the accused appellant as well as Oma Ram and present

appellant, Bhanwra Ram remained in custody for 12 months.

Thereafter their bail application was allowed and ultimately on the

basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, they were

acquitted by the competent court for the charge of committing

murder of Nimbu Devi.

The present incident is second incident, in which daughter of

complainant- Surta Ram died in suspicious condition and after

investigation police filed charge sheet against the accused

appellant u/s 498A and 306 IPC but the learned trial court framed

charges under Section 302 IPC in the alternative apart from

framing charges u/s 498A and 306 IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor

further argued that to prove the prosecution case, reliance

witnesses viz. PW.2 Ram Singh, PW.4 Surta Ram (father of the

deceased), PW.6 Jethu Singh and PW.7 Ghewarchand were

examined and proved the allegation against the appellant. It is

further submitted that in the statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

on the one hand appellant stated that at the time of incident he

was not at his home but on the other hand, narrated whole
(7 of 11)
[CRLA-891/2008]

episode while saying that death was caused accidently. Learned

Public Prosecutor further argued that the defence witnesses

categorically stated in their cross-examination that the day on

which the incident took place, the appellant was very much

present in the home but accused appellant in his statements u/s

313 Cr.P.C. stated that he was out of house when incident took

place. Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, submitted that there

is no strength in the arguments of the learned counsel for the

appellant that trial court has committed any error in holding the

appellant guilty for committing offence under Section 302 IPC.

It is also submitted that although there is no eyewitness of

the incident but the circumstances including medical evidence

loudly speaks that after murdering Meera Devi, her body was

thrown in the water tank to give it a colour of suicide, therefore,

the instant appeal may kindly be dismissed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have

perused the entire evidence of prosecution as well as defence

available on record.

Upon consideration of entire evidence, in the light of the

arguments advanced, it is admitted position that two daughters of

complainant- Surta Ram (PW.4), namely, Nimbu Devi and Meera

Devi, were married with Oma Ram (appellant’s brother) and

appellant, Bhanwra Ram. It is also not in dispute that Nimbu Devi

sister of deceased Meera Devi also died due to burn injury in her

matrimonial home and for the said incident, a criminal case was

registered against appellant as well as Oma Ram, Kheta Ram and

they remained in custody and after trial due to compromise in
(8 of 11)
[CRLA-891/2008]

between the parties, they were acquitted from the charge under

Section 302 IPC for murder of Nimbu Devi.

We have perused the statements of complainant- Surta Ram

(PW.4) in which he has categorically averred that marriage of his

two daughters was solemnized with Bhanwra Ram (appellant) and

Oma Ram, both sons of Kheta Ram ten years back. The father-in-

law, mother-in-law and husband Nimbu Devi, harassed her and

even did not allow Meera Devi and Nimbu Devi to visit their

parents’ house and later on Nimbu Devi was murdered by them

and for that incident, a criminal case was registered but after trial

Oma Ram and other family members were acquitted. With regard

to behaviour of Meera Devi, it is stated by PW.4 that for less

dowry, the appellant and his family members used to beat her and

some time when he went to the house of his daughter, they even

refused to allow Meera Devi to meet him. PW.4 further stated that

efforts were made by him to bring his daughter Meera Devi to his

home, but family members were not allowing to meet Meera Devi,

therefore, it is obvious that appellant and his family members

were harassing Meera Devi like anything.

The witness PW.4- Surta Ram categorically stated in his

statement that after receiving information with regard to death of

Meera Devi when enquiry was made by him, then on satisfactory

answer was given by the appellant and his family members and

upon inspection of body of Meera Devi, there were number of

injuries on the body of his daughter.

After perusing the statement of PW.4, we have perused the

statement of doctors PW.10- Dr. Ganpat Singh Purohit and PW.12
(9 of 11)
[CRLA-891/2008]

Dr. Vijay Laxmi. Both these doctors categorically stated that there

were four injuries on the body of the deceased and those injuries

were ante mortem in nature.

PW.10 Dr. Ganjat Singh Purohit, gave statement that it is

case of drowning after causing death. PW.10 gave following

statement, which reads as under:

” iV
s [kky
s us ij fYyh] ijs hVkfs u;e] yhoj] fLifyu] fdMuh] CyMs j]
LoLFk FkAs iztuu vxa LoLFk Fk]s xHkkZ”k; eas dkbs Z cPpk ugha FkkA mlds iVs
ds vna j dNq [kkuk Fkk[ vkra ks ds vUnj v/kipk [kkuk FkkA cMh+ vkra o
eyk”k; eas ey FkkA
ckMs Z dh jk; eas e`rdk ehjk nos h dh ekSr dk dkj.k ne ?kqVus ls
gqbAZ er` dk dks ekjus ds fQj dgk ejus ds ckn eas ikuh eas Mcw h gqbZ FkhA
a ds fy, foljk ijh{k.k grs q fy;s x;As “

fdlh rjg ds tgj dh tkp

Similarly, PW.12 Dr. Vijay Laxmi, gave following statement

with regard to cause of death, which reads as under:

“e`rdk ds “kjhj ij e`R;q iow Z dh fuEufyf[kr pkVs as ik;h x;hA
1- uhyxw nkfguh vk[a kk ds mijh fgLls ij ijw s fgLls ijA
2- [kjkp
as 8 les h [kMh+ ukd ij nkfguh rjQA
3- uhyxw 2 x1 les h lt
w u ds lkFk xys ds mijh fgLls ij nkfgus vkjs A
as 3 x -7 les h frjNh lhus ds uhps ds fgLls ij nkfguh vkjs FkhA
4- [kjkp
mDr lHkh pkVas s e`R;q iow Z dh FkhA ikLs VekVZe ds nkSjku ejs s lkFk MkW
x.kiflga iqjkfs gr lkFkh fpfdRld o ckMs Z ds p;s jeus FkAs gekjh jk; eas
e`rdk ehjk dh ekSr ne ?kqVus ls gqbZ Fkh o mlds e`R;q ckn “ko Mqck FkkA”

In view of above evidence, there is no question to discard

the finding of learned trial court recorded against the accused

appellant for commission of offence. We have also perused the

statement of accused appellant recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which

following explanation is given, which reads as under:

(10 of 11)
[CRLA-891/2008]

“?kVuk ds jkt
s eSa ckgj xkMh+ yd s j x;k gqvk FkkA ejs h ifRu ?kVuk
dh lqcg xkoa eas ls xkscj feVV~ h ykd s j ?kVuk LFky okys Vkd a s l s i ku h
ykdj vius ?kj eas fuikbZ ikrs kbZ dh Fkh rFkk iqu% Vkd
a s ij ikuh yus s tkus
ij ikuh yrs s le; iSj fQlyus ls nq?kZVuko”k e`R;q gq;h gSA eSua s ejs h ifRu
dks dHkh rxa ;k ij”s kku ekjihV ugha dh FkhA eSa funkZs’k g]aw iqfyl us Bw k
eqdnek fd;k gAS “

We have also perused the statements of DW.-1 Bhikha Ram,

DW.2 Kheta Ram (father of the accused appellant), DW.3- Jagdish

Prasad and DW.4- Omaram. All these witnesses have categorically

stated that accused appellant Bhanwra Ram was very much

present in the house on the date of incident but in the explanation

given under Section 313 Cr.PC., it is stated by appellant that on

the date of incident, he was out of home but his own witnesses

have stated before the court that he was very much in the house

when incident took place.

We have also perused the finding of learned trial court

holding the accused appellant guilty. The learned trial court relied

upon the testimony of doctors PW.10 and PW.12 in which it is

specifically stated by them that it is not a case of suicide and it is

a case in which after causing murder, the dead body of the

deceased was thrown in the water tank. In our opinion, the

learned trial court has minutely examined the entire evidence and

has rightly recorded the finding of guilt against the accused

appellant on the basis of evidence on record.

It is also necessary to observe that a dishonest plea was

taken by the appellant in his statements recorded under Section

313 Cr.P.C. that he was not at the home on the date of incident,

whereas it is established from the evidence of defence witnesses
(11 of 11)
[CRLA-891/2008]

produced by him that accused appellant was very much in the

house on the date of occurrence. It is admitted fact of this case

that that both the daughters of the complainant Surta Ram, viz.

Nimbu Devi and Meera Devi were married with Omaram and

Bhanwra Ram (appellant) sons of Kheta Ram, and prior to the

present incident, Nimbu Devi died due to burn injuries in her in-

laws’ house. For the said incident, a criminal case was registered

and Omaram husband of Smt. Nimbu Devi and other family

members were arrested but acquitted after due trial, and again

second incident of death of Smt. Meera Devi, daughter of

complainant, took place in the house of the accused appellant. The

above fact and evidence of this case loudly speak that no error

has been committed by the learned trial court so as to convict the

accused appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC.

Accordingly and in view of above discussion, the present

criminal appeal filed by the accused appellant is found to be

devoid of any force and the same is hereby dismissed.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG)J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS)J.

DJ/-

27

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *