1984 Supreme(Raj) 341
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
M.C.Jain, S.S.Vyas, JJ.
Narain - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 1982.
Decided On : 19-05-1984
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence charged.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - HOMICIDAL DEATH - EVIDENCE - INFERENCE - SUSPICION - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - FRACTURE OF 4TH CERVICAL VERTEBRAE - INSTANTEOUS DEATH - PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DEATH OF HIS WIFE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC and concealment of evidence under Section 201 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant killed his wife, Kali, and threw her body into a well. The appellant denied the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was responsible for Kali's death. The court noted that the key witness, Nava, who claimed to have seen the appellant throwing a bundle into the well, was unreliable. The court also found that the statements of other witnesses were contradictory and did not establish the appellant's guilt.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was responsible for Kali's death. 2. Whether the medical evidence supported the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof. The court also held that the medical evidence, while establishing that Kali's death was homicidal in nature, did not establish that the appellant was responsible for her death.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellant's convictions, and acquitted him.
JUDGMENT
1. - The appellant Narain was convicted of the offence under Section 302 and also for the offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur and on the first count he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and on the second count no separate sentence was awarded.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that Mohan, the brother of the accused Narain lodged a report Ex. P. 8 at the Police Station Dhamola at about 9.45 P.M. that this younger brother's wife Mst. Kali had gone from the house in the evening with a earthern pitcher, metal pitcher and a string along with a blouse but she did not return for a sufficient time. Thereupon his brother Narain went to the well. He found the pitchers and blouse lying their but he did not see his wife.He then raised an alarm which attracted Bhaga s/o Rama and kalu s/o Nava. The dead body was taken out. On this report, proceeding under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated and autopsy on the dead body was got conducted and on receipt of the post mortem report, it was revealed that the death was not caused on account of drowning and the deceased met with homicidal death. The post mortem report was received on 5th June 1982. Thereupon case under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. was registered. The investigation was under taken PW 11 Raj Singh conducted the investigation. He arrested the accused on 12th June, 1982. Before that he conducted the spot investigation and on the information Ex. P. 10 he recovered one Kose article 1 vide recovery memo Ex. P. 6. Investigation was conducted from the witnesses and alter completion of the investigation charge sheet was presented against the appellant. The learned Magistrate before whom the charge-thea was presented committed the accused to the court of Sessions Judge, Dungarpur for trial
3. The appellant was charged for the offence under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Al the trial the prosecution examined P W. I Usman khan, P.W.W. Bhura, the father Mst. Kali P.W. 3 Dariyati, the sister of the deceased aged about ten years; P.W. 4 Jamra, the mother of the deceased P. W. 5 Punja, the uncle of the deceased P.W. 6 Nava r/o Sadariya P.W, 7 Dr. Bihari Lal Berwa P.W. 8 Kashi Ram, Motbir of spot investigation. P.W. 9 Bhagwati, Motbir of recovery of Kose P.W. 10 Ganesh Lal Motbir of Panchnama and P.W. 11 Raj Singh, Investigating Officer. Statement of the accused was recorded in which he denied the prosecution case. No evidence was led in defence. The learned Sessions Judge placed reliance on the testimony of P.W. 2 to P.W. 5 and has disbelieved the testimony of P.W. 6 Nava and in the light of the medical evidence and the statements of the above four witnesses found that office has been brought home to the accused. Consequently he convicted the accused appellant for the offences under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. Hence this appeal by the appellant.
4. We have heard Mr. N.N. Mathur, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. L.S. Udawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and we have perused the case record.
5. After perusal of the record we are of the opinion that there is no connecting evidence against the accused on the basis of which the accused can be found guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The most material witness in the case was Nava who said to have witnessed the accused throwing a big bundle in the well which raised suspicion in his mind. When he learnt that Mst. Kali was recovered from the well, he thought that that bundle must be of the deceased Kali. The learned Sessions Judge dealt with the evidence of Nava P.W. 6 in sufficient details and has given reason with which we agree for not placing any reliance on the testimony of the witness Nava. There was no occasion for this witness to be present in the evening at the distance of 100 paces from the well from where the dead body was recovered. if this witness would have witnessed the accused throwing the big bundle,
Click Here to Read the rest of this document