SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 942

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
Raju @ Rajendra Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1559, 1560 of 2022
Decided On : 19-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Ms. Vidushi Garg, Ms. Vithika Garg, Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Mr. Manvendra Singh, Mr. Dashrath Singh, Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Ms. Gunjan Negi, Mr. Shiv Autar Singh Sengar, Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh Chauhan, Mr. Aishwarya Mishra, Mr. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati.
For the Respondents: Ms. Gurkirat Kaur, Ms. Asiya, Mr. Milind Kumar.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – Case rests on circumstantial evidence – There is no direct evidence by which it can be said that appellants killed or committed murder of deceased – There is no direct evidence recorded indicating involvement of appellants in crime – In case of circumstantial evidence, circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from conclusion that within all human probability crime was committed by accused and none else and circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with guilt of accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence – There is no evidence that accused were seen last together with deceased – Prosecution has failed to prove guilt and complete chain of events, which may lead to only conclusion that appellants-accused alone committed murder and/or killed deceased – Judgment and order of conviction passed by Trial Court as well as High Court quashed and set aside and accused acquitted. (Paras 7.1, 7.6, 7.7 and 8)

Facts of the case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 106 of 2018 and 107 of 2018 by which High Court has dismissed the said appeals preferred by the appellants herein – original accused convicting them for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the original accused have preferred present appeals.

Findings of Court:

Trial Court as well as High Court have committed a very serious error in convicting the appellants – accused for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC based on such circumstantial evidence. The conviction of the appellants - accused for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC is not sustainable.

Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 106 of 2018 and 107 of 2018 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeals preferred by the appellants herein-original accused convicting them for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the original accused Raju @ Rajendra Prasad and Smt. Suman Devi have preferred the present appeals.

2. The original complainant Prakash-brother of the deceased lodged a complaint/F.I.R. against the accused persons for having killed his brother Narendra @ Goliya. It was stated in the complaint/F.I.R. that his brother Narendra was married to his sister-in-law Suman Devi. There were some differences between his brother and his wife. It was alleged that accused Suman Devi was having illicit relations with the co-accused-Raju @ Rajendra Prasad. That because of the dispute and differences, accused Suman Devi had started residing in her paternal house. On 26.09.2016, his brother-deceased went to his in-law’s house to bring back his wife and children. However, on the next day in the morning, he came to know that his brother had committed suicide and his body was found hanging from a tree. That it was alleged that his brother had been murdered by Suman Devi, father-in-law Moti Ram, mother-in-law Lakhpati Devi, brother-in-law Vikram and Raju @ Rajendra Prasad in conspiracy with each other. Thereafter, on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants herein. The charge was framed against the appellants-accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC or in the alternative under Section 302/34 IPC. The appellants-accused did not plead guilty and therefore they came to be tried by the learned Trial Court for the aforesaid offence.

2.1 To bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses including PW-6, Shiwani, daughter of the deceased and the accused Suman Devi and PW-7, Sunita, sister of Suman Devi. That after close of the prosecution evidences, further statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. That on appreciation of evidence and relying upon the depositions of PW-6, Shiwani, daughter of the deceased and the accused Suman Devi and PW-7, Sunita, sister of Suman Devi by judgment and order dated 22.01.2018, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellants-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused preferred the present appeals before the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said appeals and has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeals and confirming the judgment and order of conviction, the original accused have preferred the present appeals.

3. Ms. Sangeetha Kumar and Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, learned counsel have appeared on behalf of the respective appellants and Ms. Gurkirat Kaur, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent-State of Rajasthan.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants-accused have vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, both the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court have committed a very serious error in holding the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.

4.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-original accused that the case rests on circumstantial

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top