Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : P.P.NAOLEKAR,MOHD.YAMIN
SULTAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 15 Of 1978
Decided On : 07/12/1996
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - SECTION 302, I. P. C. - CONFESSION - SECTION 164, CR. P. C. - CONFESSION MADE BEFORE MAGISTRATE - VOLUNTARY NATURE OF CONFESSION - DUTY OF MAGISTRATE TO ASCERTAIN - FAILURE OF MAGISTRATE TO MAKE PROPER INQUIRY - CONFESSION NOT CREDIBLE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - NOT CONCLUSIVE - CONVICTION SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellant was convicted of murdering his wife by throttling her. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and a confessional statement made by the accused before a Magistrate under Section 164, Cr. P. C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence was not conclusive and that the confessional statement was not credible because the Magistrate had not made a proper inquiry to ascertain the voluntary nature of the confession.
Issues: 1. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove that the accused-appellant had committed the murder. 2. Whether the confessional statement made by the accused-appellant before the Magistrate was credible.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to prove that the accused-appellant had committed the murder because it was not conclusive and did not exclude all other reasonable possibilities. 2. The court held that the confessional statement made by the accused-appellant before the Magistrate was not credible because the Magistrate had not made a proper inquiry to ascertain the voluntary nature of the confession.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant, and ordered his release.
NAOLEKAR, J.
( 1 ) BRIEF narration of the facts necessary for the adjudication of the question involved in this appeal is that on 31-5-1976 at 2 p. m. an F. I. R. was lodged by Mani Ram PW. 2, uncle of the accused-appellant Sultan Ram, alleging that his elder brother Ganesha Ram resides in his dhani at 3 KSD along with his two married sons Sultan (accused-appellant), Sahab Ram (PW. 4) and other members of the family. At about 3 a. m. Lachhu Ram (PW 3) son of Ganesha Ram came to his dhani and informed him that Sultan has killed his wife Rupa. On this information, he went to the house of his brother along with Thakur Ram. There they saw on the northern side of the bakal Smt. Rupa lying dead. Ganesha informed him that Sultan had killed his wife by throttling her and after committing the act he had run away. Sultan was not found there. In the morning Lachhu was sent on a camel to 2 KSD. When he returned he informed that Ganesha Ram was seen hanging near the canal, they reached the spot and saw Ganesha Ram hanging. On this information, the police started investigation.
( 2 ) THE accused was arrested on 4-6-1976 and was later on sent to judicial custody on 10-6-1976. Post mortem of the dead-body of deceased Rupa was conducted by P. W. 12 Dr. Sahdev Singh Shekhawat on 31-5-1976. Accused-appellants confessional statement admitting the guilt was recorded by Munsiff Magistrate Shri Hazari Lal PW 9 on 11-9-1976. The trial Court after trial has found the accused-appellant guilty under Section 302, I. P. C. for committing the murder of his wife and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. While convicting the accused the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon circumstantial evidence that (i) accused and the deceased were last seen together before the death of deceased Rupa, (ii) after hearing the cry of the deceased the witnesses reached the spot and they did not find the accused present, (iii) there was difference of age - the deceased being older than her husband (accused) which caused inferiority-complex in the accused prompting him to commit the crime, (iv) the death was caused by squeezing the neck with hands and the accused had an opportunity to do that, (v) the accused remained absconding after the incident and was produced at the police station by his uncle Mani Ram, and (vi) the accused has admitted his guilt before the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr. P. C. According to the learned Sessions Judge the circumstances are sufficient to point the finger of guilt towards the accused and exclude all reasonable possibilities of any other person committing the crime.
( 3 ) PROSECUTION witnesses PW. 3 Lichhu Ram is the younger brother of the accused-appellant. He has stated that Kalawati, younger sister of deceased Rupa was married to his another brother Sahab Ram who used to sleep in the angan whereas Sultan and his wife used to sleep in the bakal. He, his father and mother used to sleep near the diggi outside the house. He has further stated that Sultan was not present at the house on the day Rupa died, he had gone to their field for irrigation and had not returned. After the death of Rupa he went to call Sultan at the field but he (witness) did not find him there. He has further stated that after the death of Rupa he found his father Ganesha Ram scared and he had said that he committed a mistake and the police would apprehend him. Thereafter, he left the place. In the morning he saw his father hanged. He further stated that his father was not happy with Rupa on account of her having acquaintance with one Rup Ram Bawari. PW 4 Sahab Ram is brother of the accused who has stated that on the fateful night Sultan was not present in the house and had gone to the fields for irrigating. On the relevant day, his wife was sleeping in the angan whereas Rupa (deceased) was sleeping alone outside the dhani. His father Ganesha was not happy with Rupa because of her intimacy with Rup Ram Bawari. His father had informed him after the deat
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
