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

2005 Supreme(Raj) 484

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Bhagwati Prasad, Satya Prakash Pathak
Ratan Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal Jail No. 737 of 2001
Decided On : 02/17/2005

Advocates Appeared:
Mrs. Namita Sharma and Mr. R.S. Chouhan, Amicus Curiae for Appellats
Mr. Vishnu Kachhawaha, Public Prosecutor for State.

The admissibility and reliability of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt in criminal cases.

Headnote:

Circumstantial Evidence - Criminal Law - Sec. 302, Sec. 34 IPC, Sec. 394 IPC - The judgment discusses the principles of circumstantial evidence and the tests to be satisfied for its admissibility. It highlights the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, including the identification of the accused, recovery of incriminating items, and the establishment of motive.

Fact of the Case:

The prosecution alleged that the accused appellants were involved in the murder of a woman, based on circumstantial evidence. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused, leading to their appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies, recovery of incriminating items, and motive. It found that the prosecution successfully proved the chain of circumstances, leading to the conclusion that the accused were involved in the murder.

Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility and reliability of circumstantial evidence, identification parade, and the establishment of motive.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles governing circumstantial evidence, including the need for cogently established circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. It also highlighted the relevance of motive in criminal cases.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the judgment and order of the trial court convicting the accused were confirmed.

Judgment

S.P. Pathak, J.-These two appeals received from Jail arise out of the common Judgment and order dated 9.2001 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.16/2001, as such, the same are being disposed of by this common Judgment .

.2. The appellants were the accused on the file of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bhilwara bearing Sessions Case No. 16/2001. The learned Judge, vide Judgment dated 09.2001, convicted both the accused appellants as under : Under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC. Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months R.I. Under Sec. 394 read with Sec. 34 IPC 10 years rigorous

.imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months R.I. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. It is the case of prosecution that PW. 1 Narayanlal Suwalka-Up-Sarpanch, Suwana, lodged a written report (Exh. P/1) in the Police Station Sadar, District Bhilwara at about 2.30 P.M. on 18.6.1999 stating therein that sometime before lodging of the written report a lady came to his village stating that a female dead body was lying in the fields of Golaiyon. On hearing this, he took 2-3 persons with him and reached at the field near Haled village and found there a female dead body lying. Both the legs of the dead body were cut and separated; the blood was lying on the earth. On this written report, a case No. 149/1999 under Sec. 302 IPC was registered at the police station and a regular FIR Exh. P/2 was chalked out.

4. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate and in due course of time the matter came up before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bhilwara. Charges under Secs. 302/34 and 394/34 IPC were framed against the accused appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses and in documentary evidence exhibited 51 documents in support of its case.

5. The learned trial Judge, after close of the evidence of prosecution, recorded statements of accused under Sec. 313 CrPC. The accused denied the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced accused appellants as indicated hereinabove.

6. We have considered the submissions made by learned Amicus Curiae and the Public Prosecutor and have carefully gone through the evidenced produced at the trial.

.7. The learned Amicus Curiae, on behalf of the accused appellants, made following submissions before us:-

.(i) That, in the present case the chain of circumstances is not complete, therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge deserves to be set aside and the accused appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

.(ii) That, in the absence of reliable identification parade, the conviction and sentences awarded to the accused appellants cannot be sustained.

.(iii) That, the learned trial Court has wrongly believed the recoveries in the present case on the information of the accused appellants.

.8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, made following submissions: -

.(i) That, the Judgment and order of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is based on reliable circumstantial evidence, therefore, the same requires to be upheld.

.(ii) That, the recoveries made in pursuance of information given by the accused appellants and the group of the blood found on the clothes of the deceased and on the clothes of accused being of the same group, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court that it were accused persons who committed the murder, is correct and, as such, the accused have rightly been convicted and sentenced.

9. We have taken into consideration the rival submissions made before us and now we propose to examine the submissio










































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