2013 Supreme(Raj) 1519
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Govind Mathur, Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, JJ.
Rajveer @ Bawaji - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 63 of 2006.
Decided On : 15-07-2013
Advocates:
For the Appellant:Kalu Ram Bhati, Advocate.
For the Respondent: K.R. Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor.
Extra-judicial confessions are admissible in evidence only if they are made voluntarily.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'Extra Judicial Confession', 'SUBJECT': 'Murder', 'ACT SECTION LIST': 'Section 302, 201 and 394 IPC', 'SUMMARY': 'The court held that the extra-judicial confession made by the accused was improbable, unnatural, and unconvincing. The court also found that the evidence of recoveries was not sufficient to form a chain of circumstances to conclude that nobody else except the appellant had committed the offense. Therefore, the court acquitted the appellant of the charges.'}
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Rajveer Singh, was convicted by the trial court for the murder of Randheer Singh. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and his co-accused, Satyawan, had killed Randheer Singh in order to steal Rs. 58,000/- from him. The prosecution relied on the evidence of extra-judicial confession made by the appellant and Satyawan, as well as the evidence of recoveries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant and Satyawan was improbable, unnatural, and unconvincing. The court also found that the evidence of recoveries was not sufficient to form a chain of circumstances to conclude that nobody else except the appellant had committed the offense.
Issues: 1. Whether the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant was admissible in evidence? 2. Whether the evidence of recoveries was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant was inadmissible in evidence because it was not made voluntarily. 2. The court held that the evidence of recoveries was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant because it did not form a chain of circumstances to conclude that nobody else except the appellant had committed the offense.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant of the charges.
JUDGMENT
1. - Randheer Singh S/o. Fateh Singh was employed by DOC company as a Driver on oil tanker bearing registration No. HR-46A-9950. Satyawan, co-accused of the appellant, was working as a Cleaner of the truck driven by Randheer Singh deceased. It has come in the evidence of Guljar Singh (P.W. 14) that on 14.11.2004 Randheer Singh had left with the tanker along with Cleaner for Gujarat. At that time, Randheer Singh was entrusted Rs. 23,000/- towards expenses. On 22.11.2004 P.W. 14 Guljar Singh received information that the tanker was lying parked unattended on Jaipur Highway road near Dashmesh Hotel. The tanker could not be moved as its engine pipe was broken. The company had sent another tanker on 27.11.2004 from Delhi for transfer of the oil stored in the tanker. P.W. 14 Guljar Singh further stated that father of Randheer Singh came and enquired about the whereabouts of his son, driver of the tanker. He further disclosed that Satyawan Cleaner of the tanker is roaming freely in the village. Purushottam Tank (P.W. 1) submitted a written complaint Ex. P/1 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Akola on 29.11.2004 at 2.00 p.m. that he had found an unidentified dead body in the bushes on the road going from Bhopalsagar to Udaipur near Hotel of Santoshnath. In the meanwhile, Fateh Singh (P.W. 9), father of deceased Randheer Singh, had submitted a written complaint Ex. P/5 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Akola stating therein that his son had left with truck to Gujarat and he had received his telephonic call on 19.11.2004 at 6.00 p.m. Thereafter he had heard nothing regarding the whereabouts of his son. He further stated that Satyawan, Cleaner of the truck, and present appellant Rajveer had accompanied Randheer Singh. This witness further stated that on 23.11.2004 Rajveer came to the village and disclosed that Randheer Singh had alighted at Udaipur and he along with Satyawan had parked the vehicle at Jaipur-Shahpura Road near a hotel. Fateh Singh along with his son Jagat Singh (P.W. 12), Surendra Singh (P.W. 11) and Harkesh (P.W. 10) had requested the present appellant to accompany them to the place where the truck was parked. It was further stated by them that the present appellant told them that he will return after changing clothes and thereafter he evaded them. This witness further disclosed that on 25.11.2004 the present appellant along with Satyawan made extra judicial confession that they had murdered Randheer Singh and thrown his dead body in the bushes. According to this witness after having made the extra judicial confession, the present appellant along with Satyawan accompanied Fateh Singh (P.W. 9), Harkesh (P.W. 10), Surendra Singh (P.W. 11) and Jagat Singh (P.W. 12), however, after taking meal in the night in darkness they escaped and the dead body was found by the witness on 30.11.2004 at 09.30 a.m. P.W. 9 further stated that the deceased had also taken 35000/- for purchase of motorcycle and in greed to usurp Rs. 58000/- which were in possession of the deceased, the appellant alongwith Satyawan had committed the murder.
2. After recovery of the dead body and registration of FIR, investigation was carried and the investigating agency had sent present appellant Rajveer @ Bawaji and Satyawan to face trial. The appellant along with his co-accused Satyawan was charged for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 and 394 IPC. The trial court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced as under:-
| Section 302 IPC: | Life term imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. |
| Section 201 IPC: | To undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. |
However, the appellant along with his co-accused was acquitted from
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
