NATTHU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.4.1982 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, whereby, he acquitted accused Kalu for offence under Sections 302, 201 and 404 l.I.C. read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. along with accused Natthu Ram for offence under Sec. 201 I.P.C. read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. but convicted accused-appellant Natthu Ram for offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. Accused appellant Natthu Ram has also been convicted for offence under Sec. 404 I.P.C. and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Charge against accused appellant Natthu Ram was that he along with co-accused Kalu committed murder of deceased Khema Ram at village Lalgadiya and destroyed the dead body by throwing it in the Rajasthan Canal and also snatched Rs. 4000.00 from deceased Khema Ram. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Suratgarh on 17.3.1980 by one Nanu Ram, wherein, it was alleged that his brother who was having Rs. 4000.00 with him did not return till 23.2.1980. lie stayed there for two days at Village Birmana but he did not return. The police registered the report of missing but later on, upon the report of Nanu Ram on 1.4.1980, a criminal case was registered for offence under Sec. 364 I.P.C. During investigation, police came to know that accused Kalu and Natthu Ram (present appellant), committed murder of deceased Khema Ram and throw his dead body in the Rajasthan Canal. The police arrested these two accused and on their information, blood stained clothes, soil and lathi piece were recovered. On the basis of recovery, extra-judicial confession of the accused appellant and the evidence of last seen, accused appellant was convicted as indicated above.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the record of the case. Though, the case of the present accused appellant Natthu Ram and of co-accused Kalu was on the identical evidence, but the learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Kalu on the ground that the blood found on the clothes of accused Kalu was not proved to be of human blood and it was also not proved that the site which was pointed out by the accused was correctly proved by the prosecution witnesses. So far as the blood taken of eight items, out of which, no blood was detected on the blood smeared soil but it was detected on broken piece of lathi, bora, dhoti, two kamij and two payzamas. However, looking to the quantity of the blood to be shown on the dhoti and kamij, it was not forwarded to the Serologist for serological examination and rest of the items were forwarded for serological examination. In report Ex.P.- 45, in which, it was found that Item Nos. 7 and 8 i.e. a broken piece of lakari and Chhathi (Bora) are stained with human blood and Item Nos. 9 and 10 i.e. Kamij and Payzama are disintegrated and their origin cannot be determined. As per the statement of Investigating Officer, Kamij and Payzama were recovered at the instance of accused Kalu Ram vide Ex.P.-8 and dhoti and kamij were recovered at the instance of present accused appellant Natthu Ram vide Ex.P-7. When no blood was found on Kamij and Payzama as held by the learned Sessions Judge, then how the learned Sessions Judge distinguished the case of accused appellant Natthu Ram and connected him with blood on dhoti and kamij, which were even not forwarded to the Serologist. Therefore, the finding with regard to the blood is perverse and cannot be sustained. As regards piece of lakri which is said to have been recovered vide Ex.P.-lO, it was of course stained with human blood but the soil from where it has been taken was not smeared with blood as per the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.P.-44. Further whether this blood found on the piece of lakri was of the accused or of the deceased is also not proved because neither the dead body of the deceased nor the blood group on the piece of lakri was found to be of accused appellant Natthu Ram vide Serological Report Ex.P.-45. In this way, the recovery does not help the prosecution to bring out the case against accused appellant Natthu Ram, which is said to have been made by digging soil from open place.