Conviction and sentence on circumstantial evidence - motive.

JUDGMENT :-

A.K. Patnaik, J.

This is an appeal against the judgment dated 25.10.2004 of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 602 of 2002, maintaining the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short ‘the IPC’) and the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence.

2. The facts very briefly are that on 08.06.1997 at about 8.30 a.m., one Lal Singh, who was running a tea shop at By-pass Road, Sedariya Tiraha, lodged an FIR with Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer. In the FIR, he stated that at about 8.00 a.m. on 08.06.1997 one truck driver told him that ahead of Shantinath Dharm Kanta, on the wall of pulia (small bridge) one boy has been murdered and laid down and he went there to see and found that one boy, aged about 13-14 years, was lying dead in a pool of blood and several persons have gathered there. The police registered a case under Section 302, IPC, and after investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302, IPC.

3. At the trial, the prosecution did not examine any eye- witness to the murder of the deceased, but produced circumstantial evidence to establish that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased and the trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court held in the impugned judgment that after the death of his father the appellant was living with his uncle, Gurcharan Kalra, and there was a fixed deposit in his name of Rs.80,000/-, but as Gurcharan Kalra decided to utilize the fixed deposit only at the time of marriage of the appellant, in order to take revenge, the appellant purchased a dantli, took Ankit Kalra, the son of Gurcharan Kalra, in a Scooter on the evening of 07.06.1997 to get a cassette, and committed the murder of Ankit Kalra, left the scene of incident, reached Jaipur and got himself admitted to a hospital there on 08.06.1997 for treatment saying that he has met with an accident.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding of the High Court in the impugned judgment on the motive of the appellant to commit the offence is based on the evidence of Gurcharan Kalra, PW-11, about the fixed deposit of Rs.80,000/- of the appellant, which the appellant used to demand, but from this evidence the High Court could not have come to the conclusion that the motive of the appellant was to take revenge by killing the deceased. He next submitted that PW-5 has admitted in his evidence that the appellant had a good behaviour and had no bad habit and, therefore, it is quite probable that the appellant has not committed the offence. He further submitted that PW-5 has clearly said that when he made the enquiry from the appellant about the deceased Ankit, he had told him that he had been assaulted by Munna and his 2 to 4 associates and caused injuries. He submitted that it is quite possible that Munna may have killed the deceased and that the appellant had not committed the murder. He further submitted that the medical evidence of PW-22, Dr. B.K. Mathur, is clear that the injury nos. 8 and 9 could not have been caused by dantli. He submitted that since the prosecution case is that the appellant used a dantli to cause the death of the deceased, this medical evidence creates sufficient doubt on the prosecution case.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment of the High Court by relying on the following circumstances:

i) PW-6 has stated that in the evening of 07.06.1997 when his parents had gone to the market and he was playing with the deceased, the appellant came to their house and took the deceased with him saying that they will come back after getting a cassette, but thereafter the deceased did not come back home.

ii) PW-5, the father of PW-6, has corroborated the evidence of PW- 6 that at about 7.00 p.m. in the evening of 07.06.1997, he and his wife had gone to the market for shopping and when they ca