RAM GOPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Ram Gopal has been convicted for the offence under Sec, 302, I. P. C. & has been sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota, by his judgment dated July 18, 1981.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie within a narrow campass. On May 21 1980, at about noon an occurrence took place outside the house of the deceased Nathu. situated at village Achalgarh. It is alleged that Chhotulal (P. W. 1) was coming from the thrashing floor. His mother was at the house. At that time the accused was standing at the entrance of his house. Chhotulal was called by the accused Ramgopal and then he asked his wife to bring a 'lathi' A 'lathi' was brought and Ramgopal inflicted 'lathi' blows on Chhotulal, whereby he fell down. THEreupon, Chhotulal's mother Mst. Ganga (P. W. 2) appeared at the scene and asked the accused as to why he beat his son. THEreupon, the accused also inflicted blows on the person of Mst Ganga. At that time, it is said that the deceased Nathu came and exhorted the accused as to why he had beaten his son Chhotulal and wife Ganga. On this exhortation, it is alleged that the accused inflicted a 'lathi' blow on the temporal region of Nathu, as result of which he fell down. After sometime he was removed to the village Dhibri and he was examined by Ram Kalyan (P. W. 3), a private practitioner, on the next day on May 22, 1980, at about 9. 00, a. m. Shri Ram Kalyan advised that the injured may be removed to Kota, as it is likely that the injured may develop tetanus. He also gave some treatment. THE injured was not removed the same day, but he continued to remain at Dhibri on May 23, 1980, but on that day the deceased succumbed to his injury and the dead body was brought back to his village Achalgarh. On the evening of May 23, 1980, Mangilal and Shrikishan went to the Sarpanch Mohan Lal (P. W. 11) and informed him that Nathu had died, &, his family members are about to cremate him. THEreupon he visited Achalgarh on May 24, 1980. He came to know in the village that the accused Ramgopal had inflicted a 'lathi' blow on the deceased Nathu, but no body was prepared to lodge a report in the police. THEn he visited Station, Khatoli, and lodged the report Ex P/6. He simply informed that there is a rumour in the village that some 4-5 days ago, there was a quarrel between the deceased and Ramgopal. THE S. H. O. further interrogated the informant Mohanlal. In that interrogation the Sarpanch divulged that Ram Gopal had beaten the wife of Nathu and he further stated that on account of sudden death of Nathu there is suspicion in the village that Nathu had met his death as a result of assault. THE S. H. O. Mohanlal (P. W. 12) initiated the proceedings under Sec. 174, Cr. P. C, and in connection with these proceedings he visited the village Achalgarh and prepared the Panchnama of the dead body Ex. P/7 and thereafter he sent the dead body for autopsy. On receipt of the report of autopsy, he registered a case No. 38 under Sec. 302, I. P. C. , on May 26, 1980, vide F. I. R. Ex. P/11. THEreafter he recorded the statements of the witnesses on May 27, 1980, and arrested the accused and on the information and at the instance of the accused 'lathi' was recovered. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was presented against the accused in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Itawa, from where the case was committed for trial.

(3.) IN the light of the submissions made before us and in the light of the evidence of the witnesses Chhotulal, Smt. Ganga, Panchu, Bherulal and Mangilal, a question arises whether their evidence can be believed or their conduct is such, which renders it unbelievable ? The occurrence took place on May 21, 1980, in the day and according to the prosecution case, in the occurrence Chhotulal, Smt. Ganga and Nathu were injured. It is significant to note that Chhotulal did not accompany his father to Dhibri. The injured Nathu was taken to Dhibri by Prahlad and Ramkumar. Chhotulal could have reported the occurrence. The Police Station was hardly at a distance of 12 Kilometres. Admittedly, neither Chhotulal, nor any one else lodged any report of the occurrence. Chhotulal also did not disclose the occurrence to the SHO, when he visited the spot in connection with proceedings under Sec. 174. Cr. P. C. Although he stated that he and his mother did mention to the Sarpanch that his father was dealt with a blow by Ramgopal accused. Mohanlal Sarpanch does not support this version. He has categorically stated that Gangabai and Chhotu did not apprise him of the occurrence. He clearly stated in the cross-examination that Chhotu, Gangabai, Prahlad, Ramkishan, Panchu and Bherulal did not narrate the occurrence to him. Likewise Smt. Ganga (PW 2) stated that she had no talk with the SHO, although she admits that the SHO visited the spot and prepared the site plan, though wrongly stated that the SHO came on the next day of the 'marpit'. She also stated that she did inform about the occurrence to the Sarpanch through four persons, namely, Mangilal (Upsarpanch, Ramkaran Meena, Dhannalal Meena and Dhoolalal Meena, but again this version of Smt. Ganga finds no support from the statement of Mohanlal Sarpanch. Panchu (PW6) clearly admits that he did not narrate the occurrence to any one before his statement was recorded by the police and he had no talk even with the Sarpanch Mohanlal. We may mention here that this witness even denied the presence of Chhotulal and Smt. Ganga and he does not give that genesis of the occurrence, which he has been given by Chhotulal and Smt. Ganga. He stated that he does not know as to how the occurrence took place. The witness Bherulal (PW 7) also does not give the genesis of the occurrence and simply states that Gopal inflicted the blow first on Ganga and then on Nathu. He admits that he did not narrate the occurrence to any one, but for the first time he divulged the matter to the police. PW 2 Mangilal has stated that the occurrence of 'marpit' with Chhotu Lal and Ganga did not take place in his presence. He also admits that he did not narrate the occurrence to the Sarpanch and his own statement was recorded by the police after ten days. From the statements of the above eye witnesses it would appear that these witnesses did not divulge the occurrence to the Sarpanch as well as to the SHO, nor they took any steps for lodging the report at the Police Station. The conduct of these witnesses, thus, appears to us most unnatural and abnormal. It cannot be lost sight of that the witnesses came forward with no explanation whatsoever. If they would have offered any explanation, we would have examined as to whether the explanation offered is at all satisfactory or not. IN the absence of any explanation offered by the witnesses, it cannot be said that although they were truthful, but they concealed the truth on account of the fact that the accused was closely, related to the deceased and being a family affair, the witnesses did not come forward and narrate the occurrence. IN our opinion such a conduct on the part of the witnesses affects their credibility and if the credibility of the witnesses is rendered doubtful or is adversely affected, then no reliance can be placed on their testimony and on the basis of the testimony of such witnesses, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused. IN our opinion the above discussed conduct of the witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case and the accused is entitled to acquittal on this basis alone. We need not consider the inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses, which may also affect their credibility to some extent.