Back
2004 Supreme(Raj) 832
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : Shiv Kumar Sharma, Rajendra Prasad Vyas
Hanuman - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 713 of 2001
Decided On : 09/06/2004
V.P. Bishnoi, for the Appellant
M.L. Goyal, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable evidence beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, particularly in cases involving eyewitness testimony and the recovery of weapons.
Headnote:
Murder - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 302, Section 506, Section 201 - The court discussed the evidence related to the murder case and the lack of reliable eyewitness testimony, as well as the failure to establish the recovery of the weapon used in the crime. The judgment resulted in the acquittal of the appellant based on the lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Jhuthar Mal based on the prosecution's story and evidence presented. The appellant's counsel argued lack of evidence and inordinate delay in filing the FIR, while the public prosecutor supported the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence presented to be unreliable, including the eyewitness testimony, and the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the recovery of the weapon used in the crime. Based on these reasons, the court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the evidence, in particular the eyewitness testimony and the recovery of the weapon, as well as the delay in filing the FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of reliable eyewitness testimony and the failure to establish the recovery of the weapon used in the crime, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of all charges under Sections 302, 506, and 201 of the IPC, and was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.
Shiv Kumar 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. 2000/-, in default to further suffer Three Years Rigorous
Imprisonment. Under Section 506 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Two Years and fine of Rs. 5 00/-, in default to further suffer Six
Months Rigorous Imprisonment. Under Section 201 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for Four Years and fine ot Rs. 2000/-, 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 PM 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 PM 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 Cr.P.C. 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 appellant a
