BAGDA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 2-12-87, passed by the Sessions Judge Jodhpur, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

(2.) Accused-appellant Bagda Ram, along with accused Dhagla Ram, Mishri Lal, Shesha Ram and Joga Ram, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, for the offences under Section 302, 120B, 201 and 340 IPC. The case against the accused-appellant is that he committed the murder of his wife Smt. Bhuri by strangulation and throttling and removed the clothes of the deceased, concealed them in his house and tried to give it the shape of committing suicide by deceased Smt. Bhuri. Accused Dhagla Ram and Mishri Lal, with a common intention to cause murder of Smt. Bhuri, also participated in the crime of strangulation and throttling her while accused Shesha Ram and Joga Ram, with an intention to screening accused-appellant Bagda Ram from the legal consequences of the crime, gave a false information to the members of the parental house of Smt. Bhuri that she had committed suicide whereas actually she was murdered by her husband. The case of the prosecution is that Smt. Bhuri (the sister of P.W. 4 Roopa Ram) was married to accused-appellant Bagda Ram about fifteen years before the date of incident and the Muklawa ceremony was performed only about four years before the date of the incident. After she went to her in-laws' house, she was maltreated by her husband as well as by the other members of her in-laws' house and she was asked to bring a Timaniya (a gold ornament) from her parents' house. About fifteen days before the date of the incident she had gone to her parents' house and informed her brother P.W. 4 Roopa Ram that she is being ill-treated by her husband and was asked time and again that she had brought less dowry and should bring Timaniya from her parents house. She refused to go to her in-laws' house but on being persuaded, she went there about fifteen days before the incident. On 19-10-85, at about 6.30 p.m., Bhuri's brother-in-law Shesha Ram, along with Joga Ram and Sura Ram, came to the field of P.W. 4 Roopa Ram und informed him that Smt. Bhuri had committed suicide by hanging near a well situated adjacent to the Piou of Diwan Sahib. On receiving this information, P.W. 4 Roopa Ram along with P.W. 5 Mangla Ram and some other persons, went to the Bera of Joga Ram (the father of accused Bagda Ram). The dead body of Smt. Bhuri was lying in a room. There were injuries on the person of Smt. Bhuri and the ligature marks were present on her neck. Roopa Ram and the other persons, who were with him, did not believe the theory of committing suicide by Smt. Bhuri and a suspicion arose. They enquired from Bagda Ram how that happened, where upon accused Bagda Ram disclosed that some altercations took-place between him and Smt. Bhuri and he, along with Dhagla Ram and Mishri Lal, committed the of Smt. Bhuri by throttling her. The accused, also admitted before them that he gave her beatings also. They, thereafter, went to the well of Pukha Ram, who, also informed them that he was taking his she-buffaloes to the water-course for their drinking water and saw accused Bagda Ram, Mishri Lal and Dhagla Ram giving beatings to Smt. Bhuri. Thereafter P.W. 4 Roopa Ram wrote the report (Ex. P8) of the incident and produced it before Jethu Singh, ASI., on 19-10-85 at about 4.00 p.m. Jethu Singh, ASI., registered the FIR, (Ex.P8) and on telephone informed P.W. 13 Mr. Bhanwar Lal, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Circle Officer), who reached at the Police Station and started investigation and after completion of the investigation, presented the challan. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined thirteen witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life but did not impose any fine looking to the draught condition in the area. He, however, acquitted accused Dhagla Ram, Mishri Lal, Shesha Ram and Joga Ram of all the offence for which they were tried. It is against this judgment dated 2-12-87, passed by the learned Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing accused-appellant Bagda Ram that the appellant has preferred these two appeals. D. B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 35 of 1988) has been filed by the appellant through jail while D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1988 has been filed by him through his counsel.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR, in the present case, was lodged after consultation. His further contention is that the extra-judicial confession, on which reliance has been placed by the learned trial Court, is at variance. A different version has been given in the FIR and the statements of the four witnesses before whom the alleged extra-judicial confession has allegedly been made by the accused and, therefore, the extra-judicial confession, which itself is a weak type of evidence, cannot be made the basis for convicting the appellant as there is no other circumstance to corroborate the evidence of extra-judicial confession. Alternatively, it is submitted that even from the extra-judicial confession, alleged to have been made by the accused before P.W. 11 Narain Singh, it is clear that first deceased Smt. Bhuri gave four-five slaps to the appellant and, therefore, in the sudden provocation he may have caused the murder of deceased Smt. Bhuri and, therefore, the case of the appellant falls within the ambit of Section 304 IPC but the learned Sessions Judge has not considered this aspect of the case and the appellant, therefore, deserves to be acquitted on this count. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Court below and submitted that the FIR was lodged by P.W. 4 Roopa Ram promptly and is not the result of any consultation; the extra-judicial confession, made by the accused appellant before the four witnesses is true and voluntary and is not the result of any inducement, threat or promise and, therefore, it has rightly been believed by the learned trial Court and no case of any sudden provocation, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, is made-out and the judgment, passed by the learned trial Court, convicting and sentencing the appellant, does not require any interference.