Ram Swaroop Ram v. The State of Bihar

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.164 of 1990 dt.15-03-2013 3 that on query inmates of the house had disclosed that nothing was taken away. Then he claimed identification of the aforesaid two miscreants whom he had seen in the torch light.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Majhaulia P.S.Case No. 41 of l987 was registered against unknown. Accordingly, the investigation commenced, during course of which as named by other witnesses, there had been apprehension of appellant Ram Swaroop Ram and subsequently thereof, after completing investigation chargesheet was submitted on account of which the appellant faced trial and met with ultimate result having challenged under instant appeal.

4. The defence case as appeared from the mode of cross-examination as well as the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is of innocence as well as complete denial of the occurrence.

5. While challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned lower court it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the judgment impugned suffers from inherent error. To support the same, it has been urged that the learned lower court has failed to take into account that save and except P.Ws. 2 and 3, none happens to be an eye witness of the occurrence. Therefore, their evidence has to be looked into in the light of the disclosure made by P.W.7, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.164 of 1990 dt.15-03-2013 4 the informant as well as the evidence of P.W.1 inconsonance with P.W.8 who happen to be Bhojai as well as mother of the deceased respectively. With regard to status of P.Ws. 4 and 5, it has been submitted that they have shown their presence and come forward to give an additional connecting link by stating that they have seen the appellant along with others in course of fleeing in torch light which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be relied upon. It has then been submitted that P.W.2 claiming himself to be an eye witness of the occurrence being servant of the deceased is not at all found to be trustworthy in the background of the fact that when the evidence of P.W.1 along with P.W.8 is taken together, it is evident that the deceased was residing along with them after having partition effected in the family and none of them have claimed that P.W.2 was ever engaged as servant and on fateful day he was sleeping by the side of the deceased Jitendra Ram. In likewise manner, it has also been submitted that from the evidence of P.W.2 it is apparent that he claimed to have been assaulted by the appellant sustaining injury over his person which is found negativated from the evidence of the doctor P.W.9 or having failed to produce any other doctor who would have claimed that he had examined Birendra Ram on account of injury sustained by him. In the likewise manner, while challenging the propriety of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.164 of 1990 dt.15-03-2013 5 the evidence of P.W.3, another Bhojai of the deceased Jitendra Ram, it has been submitted that her evidence is suffering from so many infirmities. The first one happens to be that she was residing in different house and from her cross-examination it is evident that she cannot be an eye witness of the occurrence.

6. Therefore, after analytical approach of the evidence of P.Ws., it is evident that there was no occasion for them to witness the occurrence. The name of the appellant figured only on the ground that some sort of verbal duel had taken place at an earlier occasion on the point of sale of potato as well as for construction of Bhusauli. After all, it is an obligation on the part of the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the suspicion even being strong one will not replace the factum of proving the case.

7. While criticizing the reasoning assigned by the learned trial court, it has been submitted that those things happen to be beyond the record. Further elaborating his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence on record that the appellant’s family or the appellant was residing since before in the house and had absconded after the occurrence. There happens to be no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant was ever informed by the prosecution party regarding death of Jitendra Ram. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.164 of 1990 dt.15-03-2013 6 Admittedly, the appellant happens to be a teacher and was posted away from his village and in the circumstances his presence at the village was not at all expected in routine manner. P.W.6 who happens to be the husband of P.W.1 had categorically stated that P.W.4 had gone to call him but no such type of disclosure has been made by any of the P.Ws that they have gone to call or inform the appellant Ram Swaroop Ram. In that event, absence of the appellant at his village was but natural. It has further been submitted that while Investigating Officer P.W.12 came to know that the appellant was appearing in B.Ed examination, he had gone to the examination centre and apprehended the appellant. Had the appellant been a culprit it was not expected his presence at the examination centre. Although no plea of ali bi has been taken but from his conduct alone it is evident that his absence was not at all an intentional one as inferred by the learned trial Court. Therefore, any of the circumstance as suggested against the appellant by the learned trial court is not based upon the sound principle of law.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional P.P. while supporting the finding arrived at by the learned trial court submitted that as per Section 134 of the Evidence Act it is not quantity rather quality of evidence which matters in deciding the criminal case. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.164 of 1990 dt.15-03-2013 7 Conviction could be based on the evidence of single witness subject to its reliability and trustworthiness. The presence of Birendera Ram P.W.2 was in natural recourse, being employed by P.W.1, P.W.8, P.W.6 along with the deceased who were jointly residing after having partition effected in the family of informant P.W.7, P.W.6, the deceased and the appellant along with husband of P. W.3. Further submission is that P.W.7, the informant, was genuine in his conduct by not naming the appellant as assailant because of the fact that he was staying at different place away from the place of occurrence and so it was not expected at his end to have witnessed the occurrence. As such, the occurrence was to be viewed by the witnesses having their presence at the place of occurrence wherein a part form P.W.2, P.W.3 came forward to support the case of the prosecution as an eye witness to the occurrence. It has further been submitted that during cross-examination of these two witnesses, excluding the superficial minor contradiction, the defence could not be able to demolish their testimony. Hence both are reliable, trustworthy and on account thereof, the finding recorded by the learned trial court relying thereupon couple with other grounds as is evident from the conduct of the appellant itself, the conviction of the appellant appears to be just, proper and legal, hence does not attract interference. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.164 of 1990 dt.15-03-2013 8

9. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution had examined altogether 12 P.Ws. out of whom P.W.1 is Deventi Devi, P.W.2 is Birendra Ram, P.W.3 is Sonamati Devi, P.W.4 is Ramautar Prasad, P.W.5 is Shiv Nath Prasad, P.W.6 is Inderjit Ram, P.W.7 is Shankar Ram, P.W.8 is Sumangali Devi, P.W.9 is Dr. Gajendra Prasad Yadav, P.W.10 is Sheo Pujan Prasad, P.W.11 is Krishnawati Devi and P.W.12 is Krishna Kumar Sinha. Side by side also exhibited Ext.1, seizure list, Ext.2 is post mortem report, Ext.3 series are statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, Ex.4 is fardbeyan, Ext.5 is formal F.I.R., Ext.6 is inquest report and Ext.7 is the copy of challan. Neither any D.Ws. nor any document has been exhibited on behalf of the defence.

10. Before adverting to ocular evidence, it would be desirable to see the medical evidence in the light of deposition of P.W.9 inconsonance with Ext.2, the post mortem report. The doctor had found the following ante mortem injuries:- (i) Incised wound 2 ¼”x ½” x skin deep behind left ear of mastoid muscle. (ii) Multiple abrasion on the left forearm: (a) 1”x1/2” (b)1”x1/6” (c) ½”x1/2” and multiple small abrasion on both the cheeks. On dissection of injury no.1, it was found that the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.164 of 1990 dt.15-03-2013 9 left temporal bone was found fractured and there was blood clots land blood underneath the skin at the site of the injury. On further dissection and elevation of skull bone it was found that the brain matter and manizages were lacerated with presence of sub-dureal haemotoma. In the opinion of the doctor, the time elapsed since death was within 36 to 48 hours and when it has been calculated, the time since death is found to be covered with the alleged occurrence. As per opinion of the doctor, the injuries found over the person of the deceased happen to be caused by sharp cutting weapon, may be by Tangi and injury no.1 was found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.

11. Now reverting back to the oral evidence, it is apparent from the nature of evidence of the P.Ws. that the prosecution had adduced three sets of witness to prove its case. The first category consists those kind of witnesses who happen to be the witness of the sequence as arrived at the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence. The next category happens to be of those witnesses who have tried to connect the appellant with the commission of crime by his subsequent activities and the 3rd category happens to be of those who claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence.

12. When the evidences of the P.Ws. have been Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.164 of 1990 dt.15-03-2013 10 gone through, it appears and virtually it is found to be out of controversy at the end of the appellant himself that partition had earlier taken place in the family and on account thereof, the informant P.W.7 was staying separately. In likewise manner, the appellant Ram Swaroop Ram also stood. P.W.3 Sonamati Devi, wife of Sita Ram happens to be also separate and the family of Indrajeet P.W.6 along with P.W.8, the mother, the deceased Jitendra Ram remained joint. Therefore, presence of the deceased Jitendra as a family member of P.W.6 and further looking after the affair of P.W.6 having his access in such capacity was found to be in normal phenomena and in the aforesaid background his place of sleeping on the fateful day near Bhusauli, adjacent to the residential house wherein Jitendra Ram along with others, as stated above, were residing adjacent to the residential house, and that is the evidence of P.W.1 as well as P.W.8. When the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 8 is gone through it is also evident that they have not come outside from residential house after opening the door rather they came out from their home after appearance of so many villagers and then came to know with regard to murder of Jitendra Ram. That being the position of P.Ws.1 and 8. neither they claimed themselves to be eye witnesses of the occurrence nor they could be. Admittedly, P.W.6 came on an information given by P.W.4 Ram Autar Prasad, so he was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.164 of 1990 dt.15-03-2013 11 also not the eye witness of the occurrence. However, he stood as hearsay witness and states that he came to know that Ram Swaroop Ram happens to be the assailant of Jitendra Ram which neither P.W.4 had corroborated nor P.Ws.1 and 8. P.W.11 is the wife of the deceased who admittedly as is evident from her own evidence was residing at her Maika when the occurrence took place. Therefore, She also cannot be treated as a witness of the occurrence. P.W.10 also stood on the same category.

13. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.7, the informant of the case. He had deposed that at the relevant time while he was sleeping at his house (outer portion) over a mat, two persons appeared armed with lathi and further threatened him that in case he is going to raise alarm then in that circumstances he will be subject to assault and on that very score, he remained idle. After commission of occurrence the accused persons left the scene and then he went to the place of occurrence where he found the deceased lying dead over a cot. Blood was coming out from the left temporal region. As he withheld certain part of first information report relating to the dispute having ensued between the deceased Jitendra Ram with Ram Swaroop Ram, therefore, he was declared hostile to that extent and attention was drawn to those paragraphs taking into account the allegation made in the fardbeyan. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.164 of 1990 dt.15-03-2013 12

14. P.W.4 had deposed that while he was staying at his field to keep watch over his pumping set he found some persons going ahead at wee hour on account of which he flashed his torch and claimed identification with regard to appellant Ram Swaroop Ram amongst them having armed with axe. In likewise manner, P.W.5 had come forward to say that after hearing sound of firing he along with his brothers came at the darwaza of the deceased where he found some persons leaving and in the torch light he had identified the appellant Ram Swaroop Ram amongst them having axe in his hand.

15. The third category witness examined on behalf of the prosecution happens to be P.W.2 Birendra Ram who claimed himself to be an eye witness of the occurrence. He had stated that he being servant of Jitendra Ram had slept by the side of Jitendra Ram. After hearing whim-per of Jitendra Ram he awoke and found some persons having over Jitendra Ram and in the light which the accused persons themselves were flashing identified Ram Swaroop Ram who had engaged himself in giving repeated blow over Jitendra Ram. He had further stated that Ram Swaroop Ram had given a blow over him with a direction to leave the place and on account thereof, he ran away. After ten minutes he returned back and found the deceased dead.

16. P.W.3 is another Bhojai of the deceased Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.164 of 1990 dt.15-03-2013 13 Jitendra Ram who had deposed that after hearing whim-per of the deceased Jitendra Ram she came out from her house and found the accused indulged in criminal activity. During said course, in the torch light she had identified Ram Swaroop who had inflicted axe blow over deceased Jitendra Ram. She also shown presence of Birendra Ram (P.W.2) and at that very moment sleeping by the side of deceased Jitendra Ram.

17. During evaluation of evidence of P.Ws. it is expected at the end of the court to adhere over two principles that means to say whether in the circumstances of the case it was possible for the eye witnesses to be present at the scene. Side by side whether there was anything inheritantly improbable or unreliable. That happens to be the basic thing which will decide ultimate fate of instant appeal. From the evidence of P.W.12, the Investigating Officer in consonance with Ext.4, the fardbeyan, it is evident that the fardbeyan was recorded on 03.06.1987 at about 9.30 A.M. There is consistent evidence of the witnesses that after occurrence, there happens to be the presence of not only witnesses rather inhabitants of the village at the place of occurrence. Further from the evidence of the witnesses it is evident that none had supported the case of P.W.2 and P.W.3 that they have had ever made disclosure with regard to appellant Ram Swaroop Ram to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.164 of 1990 dt.15-03-2013 14 be the assailant of the deceased Jitendra Ram. Had there been, there was no occasion for the remaining witnesses including the informant to keep mum and instead of leveling and attributing direct allegation against the appellant to be the assailant of the deceased Jitendra Ram, suspicion should not have been shown. In likewise manner, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.8 should have been. At least P.W.1 was separate from appellant Ram Swaroop Ram and the deceased Jitendra Ram was in jointness with her. In that background certainly P.W.1 would not have left appellant Ram Swaroop Ram and at least would have named him to be the assailant of Jitendra Ram on the information conveyed by P.Ws.2 and 3. That proposition also stood with regard to propriety of evidence of P.W.4 as well as P.W.5. None of the brothers of P.W.5 had come forward to support his version and in the likewise manner P.W.1, P.W.7 and P.W.8 did not support that they were ever informed by P.Ws. 4 and 5 with regard to identification of appellant Ram Swaroop Ram leaving the place.

18. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.3. From her cross-examination in paragraph 3 it is evident that she had stated that she had gone to the Darwaza of Jitendra Ram. At the same time, she had stated that when the villagers had come, then she came from her house. She again deposed that she had not come out from her Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.164 of 1990 dt.15-03-2013 15 house before arrival of the villagers. When she came out from her house, she found 20 to 25 persons, out of whom she had named Shiv Pujan, Vishwanath, Jainath and others including Shankar, Ramautar. She had further deposed that she had narrated to them with regard to the occurrence. In the background of the aforesaid piece of evidence as referred above, her status to be an eye witness to the occurrence became doubtful and in the likewise manner, her conduct happens to.

19. P.W.2 had claimed himself to be an eye witness of the occurrence. During cross-examination (paragraph is not given), he had stated that he met with Shankar Ram and others and at that very moment itself he had stated that he happens to be an eye witness of the occurrence as well as detailed the occurrence to them. He remained at the place of occurrence till morning along with family members of the deceased. Darogaji came at morning hour before whom he had narrated the event. When his evidence is taken together with the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8, his presence at the place of occurrence during commission of crime became doubtful because of the fact that none had claimed his status to be that of a servant and further sleeping on the fateful night by the side of the deceased.

20. Other crucial aspect happens to be with regard to source of identification. P.Ws. 4 and 5 have Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.164 of 1990 dt.15-03-2013 16 contended that they possessed torch at the relevant time but none of them had produced the same before the Investigating authority nor the Investigating authority P.W.12 had seized during course of investigation. With regard to P.Ws.2 and 3, it is evident that they have not claimed identification of appellant Ram Swaroop Ram through voice, gesture, posture rather claimed to have identified in the torch light flashed itself by the accused persons. After going through the evidence of aforesaid P.Ws. 2 and 3 it is crystal clear that there was no occasion for the culprit to flash the torch light nor it was found to be probable because of the fact that at the risk of identification that too by appellant Ram Swaroop Ram being one of the family members will expose himself to the extent of such dangerous suicidal activity. At this juncture, it looks pertinent to see why P.W.2 Birendra Ram was spared that too during course of occurrence wherein appellant Ram Swaroop Ram being a family member was engaged in causing murder of his younger brother Jitendra Ram. It is also found ridiculous that after giving a blow appellant Ram Swaroop Ram let off P.W.2 Birendra Ram with a direction to run away to become an eye witness of the occurrence subsequently.

21. By way of ext.3 series, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been brought up on the record and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.164 of 1990 dt.15-03-2013 17 the same has also been taken into account by the learned trial court. It is suffice to say that in absence of examination of learned Magistrate, statements are found to be inadmissible in the eye of law.

22. After giving analytical approach to the evidence available on the record, it is found and held that the prosecution could not be able to substantiate its case above board and in the aforesaid ground at least appellant Ram Swaroop Ram is found to be entitled to avail the benefit of doubt. Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court is set aside. The appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. Appellant Ram Swaroop Ram is on bail, hence he is discharged from liability of his bail bonds. (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Patna High Court, Patna Dated,the 15th March,2013 Tahir/-(NAFR)