STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. KHETA RAM & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.11.1988 passed by Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.176/1986, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondents from the offences punishable under sections 302 and 302/34 IPC. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that PW.14 Murlidhar, the then Station House Officer, Police Station, Baap, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur had registered the FIR No.43 on 22.09.1986 at 2:00 State of Rajasthan vs. Kheta Ram & Ors. P.M. at Police Station, Baap, District Jodhpur mentioning therein that Kheta Ram, Bheekha Ram and Kalu Ram all sons of Dhuda Ram Bheel, residents of Bhojon-ki-Dhani, Baap came to the police station and Kheta Ram is holding in his right hand a chopped head of a woman. Kheta Ram informed that the said chopped head is of his wife Baludi, who had been residing with his maternal uncle Roopa Ram, resident of village Bheemji-ka-Gaon from last 10 years and Roopa Ram was having illicit relation with his wife and, therefore, he along with his brothers murdered her and brought her chopped head to the police station. It is mentioned in the FIR that clothes of all the three accused-persons were blood stained. Report of recovery of chopped head and arrest of the accusedrespondents were separately drawn and it was found that offence under section 302/34 IPC has been committed. After investigation, the police had filed charge-sheet against the accusedrespondents for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 302/34 IPC and the trial court had framed charges for the aforesaid offences.

(2.) During trial, the prosecution in State of Rajasthan vs. Kheta Ram & Ors. support of its case, got examined as many as 14 witnesses and also exhibited several documents and articles. The statements of accusedrespondents were recorded under section 313 CrPC and one witness was also examined in defence. The trial court after hearing the Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused-respondents has acquitted the accusedpersons vide judgment dated 21.11.1988.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the trial court has grossly erred in not placing reliance upon the testimonies of two eye-witnesses viz. PW.8 Shanti and PW.9 Moomal. It is submitted that both the witnesses have clearly stated in their statements that the accused-respondents murdered Baludi on 22.09.1996 at 10:00 A.M. with axe and thereafter they took chopped head of Baludi and went away from the scene of crime. It is argued that the learned trial court has disbelieved the statements of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses simply on the basis of minor contradictions in their statements. It is submitted that the minor contradictions in no manner affect the State of Rajasthan vs. Kheta Ram & Ors. testimonies of the eye-witnesses and the trial court has erred in disbelieving the said witnesses. It is also argued that the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses are fully corroborated by another prosecution witness PW.10 Roopa Ram. It is further argued that though the witnesses of the recovery of the axe have turned hostile but they have admitted their signatures on the recovery memos, which itself is sufficient to prove that the axe used in the commission of crime by the accused-respondents was recovered at their instances. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW.14-Mulidhar, the Investigating Officer, before whom the accusedrespondents had surrendered along with the chopped head of deceased Baludi and confessed that they have murdered her.