Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(Raj) 1745

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Gopal Krishan Vyas, Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
Liyakat Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2006.
Decided On : 13-08-2015

Advocates:
For the Appellant:Ranjit Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: C.S. Ojha, Public Prosecutor.

In a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and establish a complete chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty. The recovery of articles alone, without reliable and trustworthy evidence, is insufficient to establish guilt.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - RECOVERY OF ARTICLES - WEAK EVIDENCE - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - MOTIVE - IDENTIFICATION OF ORNAMENTS - INTERESTED WITNESSES - DOUBTFUL EVIDENCE - BENEFIT OF DOUBT - SECTION 302 IPC - SECTION 27 EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 437-A CRPC
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a murder investigation where the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of ornaments and a weight, to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant. The deceased's brother, PW-2-Ramjan Khan, filed a complaint alleging that the accused-appellant, Liyakat, and his brother Barkat had killed the deceased, Smt. Sugara, to gain her property.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution's case was based solely on circumstantial evidence, which was weak and insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the recovery of the ornaments and weight was not proved by reliable and trustworthy evidence, and that the testimony of the witness of recovery, PW-7-Habib Khan, was not credible as he was a close relative of the deceased. The court also found that there was no direct evidence of motive and that the prosecution had failed to explain why a large amount of money and ornaments were found in the deceased's house if the accused-appellant had intended to rob her.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence? 2. Whether the recovery of ornaments and a weight was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant? 3. Whether the testimony of the witness of recovery, PW-7-Habib Khan, was credible and reliable? 4. Whether there was direct evidence of motive to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence. The court found that the recovery of ornaments and a weight was not proved by reliable and trustworthy evidence, and that the testimony of the witness of recovery, PW-7-Habib Khan, was not credible as he was a close relative of the deceased. The court also found that there was no direct evidence of motive and that the prosecution had failed to explain why a large amount of money and ornaments were found in the deceased's house if the accused-appellant had intended to rob her. The court relied on the principles of circumstantial evidence established in the cases of Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu and Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, which require the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and establish a complete chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal appeal, quashed and set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant, and directed his release forthwith. The court also directed the accused-appellant to furnish a personal bond and a surety bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each, effective for a period of six months, to ensure his appearance before the Supreme Court in the event of a Special Leave Petition being filed against the judgment.

JUDGMENT

1. - The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant Liyakat Khan under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the jdgment dated 22.12.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 1/2005 whereby the learned Trial Court convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 302, 201, 293 and 499 I.P.C. and punished with following sentence, which reads as under:

Under Section 302 I.P.C.	Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three years S.I.
Under Section 302 I.P.C.	Three years S.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months S.I.
Under Section 302 I.P.C.	Seven years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year S.I.
Under Section 302 I.P.C.	Seven years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year S.I.

2. As per facts of the case on 10.11.2004 one Barkat Khan gave a written information at 9.45 A.M. to Police Station about death of Smt. Sugara. Upon said written information (Ex. P-24) the police registered an inquest report No. 14/2004 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and commenced inquiry.

3. During the inquiry complainant PW-2-Ramjan, brother of deceased Sugara filed written report (Ex. P-2) at 3.30 P.M. on 10.11.2004 at Pipar City in which brother of the deceased Sugara raised suspicion and made allegation of murder against Barkat and present appellant Liyakat Khan. The police registered the F.I.R. No. 333 on 10.11.2004 and commenced the investigation.

4. During investigation accused-appellant Liyakat Ali was arrested on the basis of recovery of one gold ornament Tussi and six silver chain Paizeb and Rs. 14,325/- and one iron weight (Bat) upon information given by the accused appellant Liyakat under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Thereafter after completion of investigation the challan was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pipad City from where the case was committed to the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur for trial, but later on transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jodhpur for trial. The learned Trial Court after framing the charge against the accused-appellant Liyakat Ali under Sections 302, 392, 201 and 449 I.P.C. commenced the Trial.

5. In the trial, statement of 16 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 28 documents were exhibited, so also, Articles 1 to 17 were also exhibited.

6. The learned Trial Court after taking into consideration entire facts of the case and prosecution evidence punished the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 302, 201, 293 and 499 I.P.C. vide Judgment dated 22.12.2005.

7. In this Appeal, the appellant is challenging the validity of the Judgment dated 22.12.2005 passed against him by the learned Trial Court.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that deceased Smt. Sugara and the accused-appellant are close relative. The deceased was elder mother of accused-appellant and there was no motive or intention of the accused-appellant to kill her because she was residing near the house of appellant and his family members. But upon apprehension of PW-2-Ramjan, brother of the deceased Sugara, F.I.R. was registered in which accused-appellant was arrested on the basis of false recovery of Tussi and silver Paizeb and Rs. 14,325/-. In fact, no recovery was made upon his information given by Liyakat Ali, but prosecution framed a concocted story so as to connect the accused-appellant with the era therefore, the judgment impugned passed by the learned Trial Court is totally erroneous.

9. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that a grave error of law has been committed by the Trial Court in convicting the accused-appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. because there is no eye-witnesses nor direct evidence on record to connect th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2015 Supreme(Raj) 1745

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTGopal Krishan Vyas, Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.Liyakat Khan - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentD.B. Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2006.Decided On : 13-08-2015

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Gopal Krishan Vyas, Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
Liyakat Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2006.
Decided On : 13-08-2015