2014 Supreme(Raj) 1901
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.K.Ranka, JJ.
Hakamddin @ Mamddin & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P. - Respondent
D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 509 of 2012.
Decided On : 10-11-2014
Advocates:
For the Accused-Appellant in CRLA No. 509 of 2012:Mr. Vijayant Nirwan, Advocate.
For the Accused-Appellant in CRLA No. 351 of 2012:Mr. Gurvinder Singh, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor.
The voluntary nature of disclosure statements and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 302 and 392 of Indian Penal Code - Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act - Disclosure statement, recovery of dead-body, and evidence of last seen - Consideration and ruling out of disclosure statement for non-association of any witness - Acquittal of the accused
Fact of the Case:
Accused were convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 392 of Indian Penal Code for the kidnapping and murder of a fourteen-year-old boy. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including a disclosure statement made by one of the accused leading to the recovery of the dead-body and sheep, as well as evidence of last seen with the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The Court ruled out the disclosure statement for non-association of any witness, and also disregarded the evidence of last seen due to inconsistencies and improvements in witness testimonies. The Court found that the remaining circumstances did not complete the chain of circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Reliability of disclosure statement and evidence of last seen, sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, and benefit of doubt to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the non-association of witnesses at the time of recording the disclosure statement raised doubts about its voluntary nature, and the recovery of the dead-body from an open and accessible place diminished its evidentiary value. Additionally, inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the evidence of last seen led the Court to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellants was set aside, and they were acquitted of the charges.
JUDGMENT
1. 1. By this common order, D.B. Criminal Appeal bearing No. 509/2012 filed by accused - Hakamddin @ Mamddin through Superintendent, Central Jail, Bharatpur, as well as, D.B. Criminal Appeal bearing No. 351/2012 instituted by accused - Kada @ Hameed shall be decided together.
2. Hakamddin @ Mamddin s/o. Rehmat, r/o. Vurja Khohri, Police Station, Sikri and Kada @ Hamid s/o. Tundal, r/o. Chirkhana-Ka-Bas, Police Station, Sadar, Alwar after trial were convicted by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Bharatpur vide its impugned judgment dated 21.04.2012 for offences under Sections 302 and 392 of Indian Penal Code.
3. Having convicted the appellants for the above said offences, vide a separate order of even date, both the appellants for commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. were sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default thereof to further undergo one-year's rigorous imprisonment; and for commission of offence under Section 392 I.P.C. were also sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default thereof to further undergo four months rigorous imprisonment.
4. It is informed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that Hakamddin @ Mamddin was arrested on 10.05.2002 and has already undergone twelve-years-&-five-months sentence, whereas co-accused, Kada @ Hamid during pendency of the appeal was released on bail.
5. First Information Report, in the present case, was lodged by Kishan Lal [PW-7] alleging interalia that his son, namely Netram, aged about fourteen-years on 09.05.2002 had gone to graze sheep and thereafter he was not found.
6. Kishan Lal [PW-7] submitted a written-report [Exhibit P/6] at the Police Station on 10.05.2002 at about 10:30 A.M. In the written-report, Kishan Lal stated that he is a resident of Vurja Khohri. On 09.05.2002 at about 08:00 A.M. his son Netram, aged about fourteen-years had gone along with the thirty-five sheep to the jungle for grazing, he had not returned till submission of report on 10.09.2002 at about 10:30 A.M. He further stated that his son was wearing khakhi pant and blue shirt. A further suspicion was raised in the First Information Report that accused - Hakamddin @ Mamddin s/o. Rehmat, Rehmat s/o. Unknown and Ishaq s/o. Unknown, Mev, r/o. Vurja Khohri were after his son. In First Information Report, informant said that he believe that the above said persons along with two or three other persons have kidnapped his son and also taken his sheep. He further stated that the life of his son is in danger and the above said persons named in First Information Report are also missing from their houses. In First Information Report, it was stated that till submission of report, no clue was found regarding the whereabouts of his son, Netram.
7. It will be pertinent to note here that in above report, Kada @ Hamid was not named.
8. Prosecution case, in nut-shell is that on the next date i.e. 10.05.2002 in pursuance of disclosure statement made by accused - Hakamddin @ Mamddin [Exhibit P/16], Police party accompanied by Ramkishore [PW-1] and two divers Madan Lal [PW-2] and Rajesh [PW-3] at the instance of accused - Hakamddin @ Mamddin s/o. Rehmat got recovered the dead-body of Net Ram son of complainant. After the dead-body was recovered aggravated offences were added.
9. The charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was submitted by the Investigating Agency and after due procedure same was committed to the Court of Sessions and was entrusted for trial to the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities], Bharatpur.
10. Before we proceed to notice details of evidence of the prosecution, suffice it to say, case of prosecution, being a case of circumstantial evidence rest upon the following circumstances:-
A. THAT upon disclosure statement, Exhibit P/16 made by accused - Hakamddin @ Mamd
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
