Back
P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
Vinay D. Nagar - PETITIONER
Versus
State of Rajasthan - RESPONDENT
Appeal (crl.) 210 of 2007
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.210 OF 2007
Decided On: 03/03/2008
Key Points: - The Court analyzed the bar of Section 162 Cr.P.C. with respect to statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigations and their admissibility in subsequent trials (!) (!) . - It held that while Section 162 bars the use of such statements in inquiries or trials for the offense under investigation at the time, they may be used to contradict a witness under Section 145 Evidence Act with Court permission, and for re-examination purposes, and may relate to Section 32 if applicable (!) . - The judgment discusses the applicability of Section 32 of the Evidence Act to statements of a deceased person, emphasizing that such statements must relate to the cause of death or to circumstances of the transaction resulting in death to be admissible as substantive evidence (!) (!) (!) - (!) . - It concludes that the deceased witness’s Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement in the abduction case did not relate to the cause of death or circumstances of the transaction that resulted in death and thus was not admissible under Section 32 for proving motive in the murder case (!) . - The examination of circumstantial-evidence principles requires that the proven circumstances form a complete chain pointing to the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and must be inconsistent with innocence (!) (!) (!) - (!) . - The High Court’s reliance on the deceased’s statement for motive and on circumstantial links was found insufficient to sustain conviction; the appeal was allowed and the accused to be set at liberty (!) .
JUDGMENT:
P.P. NAOLEKAR,J.-- This criminal appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2004 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 990/2002, which upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 364, 450, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C.").
2. The relevant facts of the case as per the prosecution are that Kalu (the deceased) was Chowkidar in the office of Agriculture Extension Bundi and his duty was during the night in the office premises. He was found missing under mysterious circumstances on 15.07.2000, hence informant Ramesh Chand Jain, Assistant Director lodged a written report on 15.07.2000 at 7:30 am in the Police Station, Bundi. On the basis of the report, a case under Section 456/364 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During the investigation, it was revealed that Kalu was a star witness in a criminal case registered against the appellant-Vinay D. Nagar and others under Sections 365, 364, 328, 342, 323 IPC. As per the prosecution case, the accused along with his other companions had abducted a child Sonu on 07.07.2000 and had brought Sonu in the office where Kalu was Chowkidar and kept him in the office for some time. The activities of the accused and his companions made Kalu suspicious. Since Kalu had seen the accused with Sonu and as the accused was a Clerk in the same office where Kalu was posted as a Chowkidar, the statement of Kalu was recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.").
3. The Investigating Officer moved an application before the Magistrate on 12.07.2000 to record the statement of Kalu under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and Kalu was to be produced before the Magistrate on 17.07.2000, the date given by the Magistrate. But in the intervening period, his dead body was found in a tank on 19.07.2000. The post mortem report indicated that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The appellant-accused was arrested and put to trial. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that on the relevant date he had gone to Bombay, but the explanation was found false in view of the evidence led by the prosecution whereby it was found that he had gone to Ahmedabad and not to Bombay. The Session Court found the accused guilty and convicted him.
4. The accused preferred an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed holding that in the fact- situation the deceased had seen the accused with Sonu and had named the accused as the main culprit. The statement of Kalu was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 10.07.2000. On 09.07.2000, the accused absented himself from the office and disappeared without submitting any leave application. Later on, Kalu was found dead on 19.07.2000. It was held by the High Court that the evidence collected by the prosecution shows that the accused had a strong motive and the opportunity for committing a crime. The High Court further held that the accused was absconding and hence the disappearance of the accused after the occurrence was a relevant circumstance which in the absence of plausible rebuttal evidence can be taken into consideration.
5. The High Court was of the view that from the aforesaid circumstances an inference can be drawn towards the appellant's guilt. All the aforementioned circumstances taken cumulatively have formed a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the appellant and none else. Hence, the appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
6. It is urged by Shri U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellant that the appellant's conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has relied upon the statement made by the deceased K
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
