1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT State of Rajasthan vs. Ranchhor & Anr. D.B.Cri. Appeal No.294/1988 Under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 22.09.1987 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.84/1984. ....... Date of Judgment: 17th January, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr.JPS.Choudhary, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Sandeep Mehta for the respondents. BY THE COURT :(PER HON.MR.BHAGWATI PRASAD,J.)- This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment dated 22.09.87 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.84/1984. Out of the two respondents, one respondent, Ranchhor has died, therefore, appeal against him stands abated and the State appeal now survives only against accused Phooli Devi. 2 The prosecution was initiated on the basis of the first information report lodged at Police Station, Bilara on 25.03.81. The prosecution story briefly stated are that deceased Sugan Lal was the husband of accused respondent Phooli Devi. They were residing together with children in Kumharon-ka-bas, Bilara. It is alleged that Smt.Phooli Devi was having illicit relationship with accused Ranchhor and due to this Ranchhor used to beat his wife PW/3 Tara Devi , on her objection. Three months before the murder of Sugan Lal, accused Ranchhor and PW/3 Tara Devi both were at their house and at that time Badu Ram, accused Phooli Devi, Sanwant Lal and Champa Lal came there and there all of them took liquor. Accused Phooli Devi then told accused Ranchhor to kill her husband and he replied that he will do this. Accused Ranchhor also asked these persons to kill his wife PW/3 Tara Devi. Further the prosecution story is that on 24.03.81 in the night, brother of deceased Sugan Lal, PW 1, Dulichand, was sleeping in his house, situated just opposite to the house of deceased. On hearing cries at about 12.30 in the night , he woke up and saw that many people were collected outside the house of deceased Sugan Lal and they were saying that Sugan Lal is dead . 3 He then went inside the house of deceased Sugan Lal and saw the dead body of Sugan Lal lying there. When asked, accused Phooli Devi replied, ' your brother Sugan Lal was, cruel and he is dead'. In the night of 24.3.81 Duli Chand went to the police station to lodge FIR but since only a constable was there and the SHO was sleeping, therefore, he was asked to come in the morning. Again at 05.00AM PW/1 Duli Chand went to police station, Bilara and Pratap Singh SHO directed him to get a written report and then he filed a written FIR. With the lodging of the report, investigation started. After usual investigation , charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the court of Sessions , where charges were framed against the accused persons under Section 302 and 302/34 IPC. After considering the case of the prosecution, the trial court acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them giving them the benefit of doubt. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that trial court has erred in not considering the statement of PW/3 Tara Devi , wife of accused Ranchhor, that accused Ranchhor had illicit relations 4 with co-accused Phooli Devi, w/o deceased Sugan Lal. PW/3 Tara Devi , in her statement, has categorically stated that three months before the occurrence, Badu Ram, Phooli Devi, Sawant Lal and Champa Lal had a wine party at the house of accused Ranchhor and at that time accused Phooli Devi asked accused Ranchhor to kill her husband Sugan Lal. Ranchhor also asked them to kill Tara Devi , his wife . From the statement of PW/1 Duli Chand it is clear that when he entered the house he saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the floor. There were many injuries of sharp edged weapons and there were burning marks on the body. He further stated that at 08.00 PM he saw Ranchhor and two other persons entering the house of deceased Sugan Lal and at that time Sugan Lal was inside the house. From the statement of PW/4 Dr. K.N.Mathur it is clearly established that six injuries could not be self inflicted and these injuries were inflicted before the death of the deceased. In his opinion, cause of death was injuries and burning. The learned counsel further urged that from the nature of the injuries, it is established beyond doubt, that the assailants had knowledge that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death and the trial court has erred in acquitting the 5 accused by giving them the benefit of doubt by holding that the deceased might have committed suicide. Learned counsel for the appellant further urged that PW/2 Ramesh has categorically stated that he heard the talk between accused Phooli Devi and Fatehmal, wherein Phooli Devi stated that she had inflicted a lathi blow on the deceased and Ranchhor inflicted injuries with knife. It is also stated that clothes , blood stained copy , two books and two pieces of Rassi were recovered from the house of the deceased and the accused Phooli Devi. A gupti was also recovered from the bundles of wood from the house of deceased and accused-respondent Phooli Devi. Recovery of gupti , etc. so recovered, clearly show that the deceased was done away with by the accused. Per contra , the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the deceased was suffering from some disease and as a result of which he had some mental problem and as such he committed suicide. He further contended that the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given our thoughtful consideration to the material available on 6 record. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The whole prosecution story depends on the circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that the circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent , sufficient and reliable evidence. All the proved circumstances must provide a complete chain. In cases where the case of the prosecution rests purely on circumstantial evidence, motive may play an important part. Here the motive was that the accused Phooli Devi, wife of the deceased, had illicit relationship with accused Ranchhor and both of them wanted to get rid of Sugan Lal. But here it is to be noticed that PW/1 Dulichand, was the real brother of Sugan Lal,who lodged the First information report. This witness nowhere stated that accused Phooli Devi had illicit relationship with accused Ranchhor. If there was any such relationship, Dulichand would have the knowledge, because he was not only the brother of Sugan Lal, but was his neighbor as well. PW/2 Ramesh also resides in the same lane and he is also a brother of deceased Sugan Lal, in relation. He also nowhere states that accused Phooli Devi and accused Ranchhor had any illicit relationship. PW/6 Dhagla Ram is one of the neighbour of deceased Sugan Lal. He also has not mentioned anything about such relationship. PW/3 Tara Devi, wife of accused Ranchhor, of course 7 says about such an illicit relationship. But in Ex.D/4 nothing has been mentioned about such relationship, which makes it untrustworthy. Prosecution has tried to show that on the fateful night , PW/6 Dhaglaram had seen two people , whose names he does not know, coming out of the house of deceased Sugan Lal at 11.00PM and accused Ranchhor was also behind them. In his police statement, PW/6 Dhaglaram, has stated that while he was coming towards his house, he saw accused Ranchhordas walking out of the 'bas'. So it is seen that there is variance in the statement of this witness. PW/5 Pratap Singh, in his statement has stated that Sugan Lal was suffering from some venereal disease . A person who suffers from such disease often goes through mental imbalances and they have a tendency to commit suicide. In such circumstances, there is all the probability that the diseased might have committed suicide. The reasoning given by the trail court for disbelieving the testimony of prosecution witnesses, is so sound that it hardly requires any interference in an appeal against acquittal. Since there are no eye witnesses to the incident and the circumstances indicated are presumptions , they cannot be construed 8 to make out a complete chain. Therefore, it is not proper for us to hold that the findings of the trail court are perverse. Thus we do not find any fault in the findings so recorded by the trail court to acquit the accused and thus, in the result, we hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to make out a case against the accused for their conviction. We see no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Consequently, we dismiss the State appeal. Accused Ranchhor is since dead , the case abates against him. Accused Phooli Devi, w/o Sugan Lal is on bail, she need not surrender, her bail bonds are cancelled. (BHANWAROO KHAN), J. (BHAGWATI PRASAD), J. L.George