1996 Supreme(Raj) 822
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
V.S.Vokje, P.C.Jain, JJ.
Rajendra Kumar and Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 364 of 1992.
Decided On : 23-01-1996
The court held that circumstantial evidence must be fully established and must leave no reasonable doubt about the complicity of the accused with the crime. The court also held that the opinion of a handwriting expert is admissible in evidence but must be supported by reasons. Additionally, the court held that the accused must be examined under Section 313 of the CrPC regarding any incriminating evidence against them.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CONVICTION FOR MURDER AND DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - LAST SEEN EVIDENCE - OPINION OF HANDWRITING EXPERT - EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - RELEVANCE AND WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 293 AND 313 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - EVIDENCE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellants were convicted by the trial court for the murder of Narendra Soni and destruction of evidence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen evidence of Narendra Soni in the company of the accused, the recovery of a watch and chain from the accused, and the opinion of a handwriting expert that letters demanding ransom were written by one of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused-appellants. The court held that the last seen evidence was frail and could not be relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also found that the opinion of the handwriting expert was not supported by reasons and could not be used against the accused. Additionally, the court held that the accused were not examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) regarding the opinion of the handwriting expert, which rendered the report inadmissible in evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the last seen evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused for the murder of Narendra Soni? 2. Whether the opinion of the handwriting expert was admissible in evidence and could be used against the accused? 3. Whether the accused were properly examined under Section 313 of the CrPC regarding the opinion of the handwriting expert?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the last seen evidence was frail and could not be relied upon to establish the guilt of the accused. The court noted that it was not clear whether Narendra Soni actually went to Indore with the accused or left their company later. Additionally, the court found that the prosecution had not proved whether the accused were seen in the village after the alleged murder. 2. The court held that the opinion of the handwriting expert was not admissible in evidence because it lacked reasons. The court noted that the Director, Finger Print Bureau, who gave the opinion, had not provided any explanation for his conclusion. Additionally, the court found that the accused were not examined under Section 313 of the CrPC regarding the opinion of the handwriting expert, which rendered the report inadmissible in evidence. 3. The court held that the accused were not properly examined under Section 313 of the CrPC regarding the opinion of the handwriting expert. The court noted that the trial court had not put any questions to the accused regarding the report of the Director, Finger Print Bureau. The court held that this was a violation of the accused's right to a fair trial.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.
JUDGMENT
1. - This is an appeal against the Judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nimbahera dated 29.10.1992 whereby the accused appellants Rajendra Kumar and Arjun Lal were convicted for the offence under sections 302 and 201 IPC and each of them has been sentenced to life imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and to three years simple imprisonment together with a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence Under Section 201 Indian Penal Code.
2. On 13.9.1995, one Mithulal Kumawat lodged a report at Police Station, Chhoti Sadari to the effect that at about 8.30 AM on that day, he went to his well situated behind the Gurukul School to fetch water. He spotted a dead body floating on the water. On receipt of this report, the Police started proceedings under Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code P.W. 12 A.S.I. Shiv Singh reached the spot and with the help of Motbir, took out the dead body from the well. The dead body was found tied with a heavy stone and a rope. P.W. 8 Gordhan Soni came there and identified the dead body to be of his son Narendra Soni.
3. P.W. 8 Gordhan Soni stated that his son left for Indore in the company of the accused persons leaving behind his cycle at the shop of P.W. 1 Prahalad Panwala, who delivered the same to him at 10.00 P.M. on 9.9.1989. Shiv Singh, ASI submitted the report Ex. P. 17 to the S.H.O. and the latter in view of the suspicious circumstances, registered a case Under Sections 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code and the investigation commenced.
4. P.W. 13 Madansingh inspected the site and prepared the Site Plan Ex.P. 13. Accused Rajendra Kumar and Arjun Lal were arrested vide arrest memos Ex. P. 22 and 23 respectively. While in police custody, accused Arjunlal made a statement Ex. P. 23 under s. 27, Evidence Act to the effect that he had thrown a shoe in the hall and that he was prepared to get the same recovered. Pursuant to the above information, the accused Arjunlal got the shoe recovered from the Hall. That recovery memo is Ex.P. 10. Accused Arjunlal also furnished another information Ex.P. 58 also under s. 27, Evidence Act that he has concealed a silver chain in two pieces in his residential house and that he was prepared to get the same recovered. In pursuance of the above information, accused Arjunlal got the above chain recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P. 2. Similarly accused Rajendra Kumar made a disclosure statement Ex.P. 59 Under Section 27, Evidence Act regarding the recovery of watch from his residence and pursuance to the above information a watch was recovered from his house vide recovery memo Ex.P. 3. Accused Rajendra Kumar and Arjunlal also produced the copy Ex.P. 60 and the letter Ex.P. 61 before the S.H.O.
5. The Investigation Officer got conducted the identification proceedings of the watch by Shri Shripal Sharma, P.W. 14. P.W. 5 Suresh Chandra correctly identified the watch before Shri Shripal Sharma. It is also alleged that P.W. 5 Suresh Chandra also produced the letter Ex.P. 21 on 14.9.1989 before S.H.O. P.W. 13 Madansingh, which was seized vide memo Ex.P. 25. By letter Ex.P. 25, a ransom of Rs. 10,00,000/- was demanded from Suresh Chandra for releasing Narendra Soni. The Investigating Officer suspected that perhaps the letter was written by one of the accused-persons. He, therefore, requested Shri Shripal Sharma for attesting the specimen handwriting of the accused Arjunlal and Rajendra Kumar. The specimen hand writings of both the accused which are Ex.P. 23 to 39 and Ex.P. 42 to 57 were made before Shri Shripal Sharma. Suresh chandra also produced the Ex. P 20 and the letter Ex. P. 21 before Shri Shiv Singh, ASI. During investigation, the Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh vide his letter Ex.P. 8 sent both these letters received from Suresh Chandra together with the specimen writings of the acc
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
