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
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
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cogent and unerring circumstantial evidence to establish guilt in cases based on such evidence, and the burden on the prosec....
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under same roof and being last person seen with deceased.(2) In a case of circumstantial evidence, m....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must provide a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, failing which the accu....
Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable when the chain of events proves guilt exclusively and the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation for an unnatural death occurring ....
Section 304 Part II IPC relates to punishment but without any intention to cause death.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must form a complete chain that excludes any reasonable do....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.