Back
2004 Supreme(Raj) 826
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Shiv Kumar Sharma, Rajendra Prasad Vyas
Hanuman [Alwar] - Appellant
Versus
State of Raj. - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 713 of 2001
Decided On : 09/06/2004
Mr. V.P. Bishnoi, for the Appellant.
Mr. M.L. Goyal, Public Prosecutor, for the State.
The central legal point established is the requirement for reliable and timely evidence, as well as the need to establish a clear connection between recovered evidence and the crime.
Headnote:
Murder - Criminal Law - IPC Section 302, Section 506, Section 201 - The court discussed the evidence related to the delay in filing the FIR, the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, and the recovery of the weapon. The court highlighted the lack of autopsy, the unnatural conduct of the eyewitness, and the failure to establish the connection between the recovered weapon and the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Jhutar Mal based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and the recovery of a weapon. The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing lack of evidence and delay in filing the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the eyewitness testimony unreliable and raised doubts about the recovery of the weapon. It highlighted the lack of autopsy and the unnatural conduct of the eyewitness, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: Reliability of eyewitness testimony, delay in filing the FIR, and the connection between the recovered weapon and the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for reliable evidence, highlighted the importance of timely reporting of incidents, and stressed the requirement for establishing a clear connection between recovered evidence and the crime.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be set at liberty.
S.K. Sharma, J.-The appellant was indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Kishangarh Bas District, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 162/1998 for having committed murder of Jhutar Mal. Learned Judge vide Judgment dated August 31, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellant thus:-Under Section 302, IPC:
To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to further suffer Three Years Rigorous Imprisonment. Under Section 506, IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Two Years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer Six Months Rigorous Imprisonment.
Under Section 201, IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Four Years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to further suffer One Year Rigorous Imprisonment. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. As per the prosecution story the informant Kamla Devi (PW. 1) wife of Jhuthar Mal (now deceased) submitted a written report at Police Station Mandawar on June 29, 1998 with the averments that on June 27, 1998 at around 9.00 p.m. her husband Jhuthar Mal soldier of Indian Army had come to his home on vacation and finding that the appellant (nephew of Jhuthar Mal) made assault on his own father, Jhuthar Mal reprimanded the appellant who in turn issued a threat to liquidate Jhuthar Mal. On the fateful day, at around 10.00 p.m. when Jhuthar Mal had gone out side the house to urinate, the appellant dealt blows with a knife on the chest and stomach of Jhuthar Mal who raised an alarm, responding to which, the informant and her sister’s daughter Tara came rushing out of the house and saw Jhuthar Mal lying on the ground. The appellant on seeing both of them went inside his house. While going inside, he stated that he had done his job and they can now take care of the deceased. A crowd gathered from the near vicinity and finding that the deceased was still alive, he was taken to the Hospital in Kalu Ram’s jeep. When the informant made an attempt to alight in the jeep Rajendra Vakil and Ramotar prevented her on the pretext that what she would do and that they all would take care of her husband. The informant did not know as to where her injured husband was kept throughout the night. In the morning, her husband was brought back to his house and she was told that her husband had died. She thereafter became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, she learnt that her husband’s cremation was already over at the instance of all these persons in order to destroy the evidence. When she was about to leave to the Police Station to report the matter, appellant issued a threat to her life. Subsequently, when her relations came to see her, she lodged the report. On the basis of the said report, Police Station Mandawar, registered a case for offences under Sections 302 and 201, IPC and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course, the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar. Charges for offences under Sections 302, 202 and 201, IPC were framed against the appellant who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of his case examined as many as 13 witnesses. In the explanation recorded under Section 313, CrPC. The appellant claimed innocence and pleaded that he was implicated falsely. In defence no witness was however examined. On hearing the final submissions, the learned trial Judge, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.
3. Mr. Bishnoi, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently canvassed that there is no evidence on record to connect the appellant with the crime. The FIR was lodged with an inordinate delay of three days which caused a shadow of doubt on the credibility of the prosecution case. Since, there is no eye-witness of the occurrence, the appellant could not have been convicted and sentenced. Alleged recovery of katar was not effected from the exclusive possession of the appella
