2015 Supreme(Raj) 2007
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mohammad Rafiq, Anupinder Singh Grewal, JJ.
Pawan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 909 of 2008.
Decided On : 1-12-2015
Advocates:
For the Appellant:Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. V.S. Godara, Public Prosecutor.
In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is required to merely pro-bablise his defense.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - CONVICTION - ACQUITTAL - MENTAL DISORDER - SCHIZOPHRENIA - BURDEN OF PROOF - SECTION 106 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - EXPLANATION BY THE ACCUSED - SECTION 437-A OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - PERSONAL BOND AND SURETY BOND - SUPREME COURT NOTICE - APPEARANCE BEFORE SUPREME COURT:
Fact of the Case:
Accused-appellant Pawan Singh was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife, Kirti @ Santosh Lata. The prosecution alleged that the accused-appellant demanded dowry from his wife and subjected her to cruelty, leading to her death. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed that his wife was suffering from Schizophrenia and died due to her violent act in mental disorder.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court convicted the accused-appellant based on circumstantial evidence and the failure of the accused-appellant to prove his defense. The High Court, on appeal, acquitted the accused-appellant, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused-appellant had pro-bablised his defense that his wife was suffering from Schizophrenia and died due to a sudden fall.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of murder under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the accused-appellant discharged his burden of proving his defense that his wife was suffering from Schizophrenia and died due to a sudden fall.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proving the charge of the offense against the accused is always on the prosecution. 2. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances sought to be proved against the accused should be so complete as to rule out any single hypothesis that may be pointing out towards his/her innocence. 3. The accused is required to merely pro-bablise his defense and not to prove the same by the standard of reasonable doubt. 4. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not shift the burden of proof on to the accused.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC, and acquitted him of the charge. The accused-appellant was directed to furnish a personal bond and a surety bond before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court, undertaking to appear before the Supreme Court in the event of a Special Leave Petition being filed against the judgment or on grant of leave.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused-appellant Pawan Singh has approached this Court by way of instant appeal challenging the judgment dated 13.08.2008 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Women Atrocity and Dowry Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the trial court') whereby the accused-appellant has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC, but convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default whereof, he would have to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for four months.
2. Factual matrix of the case is that on 09.07.2006 at about 5.15 P.M., complainant Chanchal Kant Verma (RW. 3) with his brother, Anil Kant Verma (P.W. 1) submitted a written report (Exhibit P-1) at Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur stating therein that marriage of his sister Kirti @ Santosh Lata and accused-appellant Pawan Singh was solemnized at Nasirabad. On 08.07.2006 at about 11.45 P.M. he came to know that his sister had expired. When he reached at the house of the accused-appellant on 09.07.2006, he found that his sister had died in suspicious circumstances as some injuries were visible on her dead body. He further stated that he had doubt that accused-appellant and his family members had committed murder of his sister. It was further stated that the accused-appellant used to demand dowry from his sister. Since the accused-appellant had a life insurance policy in the name of his sister Kirti @ Santosh Lata, he had murdered his sister to get claim thereof. On the basis of written report (Exhibit P-1), FIR No. 474/2006 (Exhibit P- 2) was registered for offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.
3. The accused-appellant also lodged a report with Police Station Jhotwara (Exhibit P-15), in which the police started investigation under Section 176 Cr.RC. Dead body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem and panchayatnama thereof was also prepared.
4. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant. The trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and in the alternative for offence under Section 302 IPC. The accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced 14 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.RC. wherein he pleaded innocence. In defence, one witness was produced and 8 documents were exhibited. The trial court, on conclusion of the trial, vide judgment and order dated 13.08.2008 acquitted the accused-appellant of the charges under Section 498-A and 304-B IPC, but convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 IPC in the manner indicated above.
5. Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that conviction recorded by the learned trial court, being contrary to the provisions of law as also the material on record, is not legally sustainable. The trial court has not properly appreciated facts and circumstances of the case and only on perverse findings, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence available on record to show that the deceased was murdered by the accused-appellant. The trial court in para 15 of the judgment has found that the prosecution has failed to prove allegation of demand of dowry as well as allegation of cruelty. Thus, the accused-appellant has been acquitted under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The trial court further observed that testimony of the prosecution witnesses Chanchal Kant Verma (P.W. 3); Salil Kant Verma (PW. 4), Nirmal Kant (P.W. 5), Dr. Kamal Kant Verma (P.W. 6) is shaky, contradictory, unreliable, untrustworthy, yet convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Dr. Rajendra Kakkar (P.W. 8) has categorically stated that he found no visible injury on skull of the deceased
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
