1970 Supreme(Raj) 228
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
B.P.Beri, L.S.Mehta, JJ.
Pukhraj - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 1969.
Decided On : 20-04-1970
The presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act can be extended to aggravated offences such as murder, where the possession of the stolen property could not have been transferred from the deceased to the accused except by murder.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - Murder - Conviction - Appeal - Circumstantial evidence - Identification of property - Presumption under Section 114, Evidence Act - Applicability.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased Raghunath was murdered and his body was found near a volleyball field. The accused Pukhraj was arrested and charged with murder and robbery. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the deceased's ornaments and currency notes from the accused's house and shop, the identification of the ornaments by the deceased's wife, and the accused's presence at the scene of the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the accused's possession of the deceased's ornaments and currency notes, coupled with his presence at the scene of the crime, raised a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that he was guilty of murder and robbery. The court also held that the identification of the ornaments by the deceased's wife was reliable, even though she was not able to formulate any cogent or intelligent reason for her identification.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the accused's possession of the deceased's ornaments and currency notes raised a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that he was guilty of murder and robbery. 3. Whether the identification of the ornaments by the deceased's wife was reliable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt based on the following circumstantial evidence: - The accused's possession of the deceased's ornaments and currency notes. - The accused's presence at the scene of the crime. - The identification of the ornaments by the deceased's wife. 2. The court held that the accused's possession of the deceased's ornaments and currency notes, coupled with his presence at the scene of the crime, raised a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that he was guilty of murder and robbery. The court noted that the presumption under Section 114 is not conclusive, but it is a rebuttable presumption. However, the accused failed to rebut the presumption in this case. 3. The court held that the identification of the ornaments by the deceased's wife was reliable, even though she was not able to formulate any cogent or intelligent reason for her identification. The court noted that the deceased's wife was a simple village woman and that it was not expected of her to give a detailed explanation of her identification.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the accused's conviction for murder and robbery.
JUDGMENT
1. - The deceased Raghunath Darji, aged about 50 years, was incharge of a water-hut, opened by one Nanoolal Sukhwal, P.W. 16, In Merta city for offering free water to padestrians. He was drawing Rs. 35/- per month in lieu of his services. His wife Mst. Rampyari was doing some domestic work in three households. She was earning about Rs. 45/- permensum. They had three children, namely, Kalu, P.W. 17, (aged about 11 to 14 years), Bhagwati (nearly 7 years' old) and Navrat (aged approximately 5 years). Some two years prior to the date of the occurrence (i.e., April 2, 1968), Raghunath had sold his house, situate in the village of his birth, Bhakri, for Rs. 600/- to Rs. 1000/-, to one Moolchand. Of the money received, he deposited Rs. 300/- with Amrit Raj alias Babulal Mahajan, P.W.1, a resident of Merta city, for safe custody NO receipt on account of the money was passed by the depository in favour of the depositor 'Later on P.W.15 Mst. Rampyari also deposited her three gold ornaments, namely, 'Tadda' Article 1, 'Tussi' Article 2 and 'Bor' Article 3 containing gold weighing about 6 tolas, with Amrit Raj somewhere in October, 1967 In February, 1968 (that is about two months before the occurence) the ornaments were brought back by Mst. Rampyari from the depository. A few days before the incident the accused Pukhraj went to the water hut, which was in charge of Raghunath, to drink water, Pukhraj inter alia inquired of Raghunath as to how he was eking out his livelihood and supporting the members of his family. Reghunath's reply was that he was in financial tringency. He had, however, entrusted Rs. 1000/--, and some ornamenta to Amrit Raj for safe keeping. Having got this clue, Pukhraj suggested to him that the money and the ornaments should better be utilised elsewhere and be deposited with the Sub-Divisional Officer, Merta, so that they might carry interest and he too might get a job. Thereupon Raghunath and his wife with-drew Rs. 1000/--from Amrit Raj. The ornaments had already been pulled back, as stated above. Ten currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/--, each were shown by Raghunath to Pukhraj. Raghunath, an unsophisticated and simpletan Villager insisted that he would like to get back the same currency notes which he was to deposit Pukhraj with a view to create confidence in Raghunath, made tick-marking on each of the currency notes with his fountain pen on its left side. In the morning of April 2,1968, at about 7 or 8, the accused Pukhraj again approached Raghunath and told him that first he would like to show his children to the clerk of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Merta, to enable to know that he was a man of substantial family. He, therefore, persuaded him to send his children with him. Credulous Raghunath readily believed in what Pukhraj had told him and sent his three minor children, Kalu, Bhagwati and Navrat, with the accused. Pukhraj took these children to a well known as 'Kundal', The accused asked Kalu to see young fowls in the well and when he did so, he wanted to push him into it. Good luck, however, averted the tradegy as Kalu caught hold of a pararet wall. In the meantime having seen cartsmen Pukhraj came back to Raghunath along with the children. Kalu told Ragaunath that he would not like to be in the company of the accussed in future. Despite this, confidence of Raghunath in Pukhraj did not receive any jolt and that very day at about 11a m the accused succeeded in taking away Raghunath's two childern, Kalu and Bhagwati, under the pretext that they would be shown to the clerk of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Merts Road, which is at a distance of about 10 miles from Merta City. Bhagwati was seated in the train going towards Bikaner and Kalu was made to board the train proceeding to Jaipur. The accused Pukhraj came back to Merta City. Some persons seeing Bhagwati peeping managed to send her to her house that very day. Next morning Kalu also managed to return to his house. Prior to that, i.e. on April
Click Here to Read the rest of this document