2016 Supreme(Raj) 192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI, JJ.
Govind Singh - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 281 of 2010
Decided On : 29-08-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Poonia
For the State : Mrs. Sonia Shandilya
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 374, 161 and 313 - Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 363 , 366 , 376 , 302 – Offence of murder – Examination of accused - Raped and murdered - Medical examination - Sought to be tried - Appeal against conviction - Brief is that at submitted a written report to ASI indicating that he came to with his family in connection of marriage of his brother-in-law - In night at about 8 p.m., they went to village from house of his father-in-law situated at stand - After procession, they returned at about 9 p.m. to the house of his father-in-law Singh - His daughter was also with them and thereafter - She accompanied children - In night, they thought that she would have slept with children - In morning at about came to them and told that informants daughter is lying dead near road - Thereafter, he and his brother-in-law Singh rushed to the road side, where his daughter years was lying dead near a tree of at the corner of road - They saw injuries on mouth and head of the deceased and her pant was blood stained. After removing her pant, it was noticed that she has been raped - Someone has raped and murdered his daughter – Held, Prosecution to prove motive for the crime - Often motive is indicated to heighten the probability of the offence that accused was impelled by that motive to commit the offence. Proof of motive only adds to the weight and value of evidence adduced by the prosecution - If the prosecution is able to prove its case on motive, it will be a corroborative piece of evidence - But even if the prosecution has not been able to prove its case on motive that will not be a ground to throw the prosecution case nor does it corrode the credibility of the prosecution case. Absence of proof of motive only demands careful scrutiny of evidence adduced by the prosecution - In the present case, absence of convincing evidence as to motive makes the court to be circumspect in the matter of assessment of evidence and this aspect was not kept in view by the High Court and the trial court - accused-appellant was last seen with the deceased - After arrest of accused-appellant, the recoveries were made by the investigation agency at the instance of accused and he identified the place of occurrence - Reports of Forensic Science Laboratory and CDFD, Hyderabad are conclusive regarding matching of the materials and further no explanation has been tendered by the accused-appellant with regard to the incriminating material against him which provides the missing links - Appeal is dismissed
Dinesh Chandra Somani, J.
This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dt. 12/3/2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 68/2008 (93/2008) whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
(i) For offence under Section 363 IPC sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.
(ii) For offence under Section 366 IPC sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.
(iii) For offence under Section 376 IPC sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's additional simple imprisonment.
(iv) For offence under Section 302 IPC sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one year's additional simple imprisonment.
2. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 11/4/2008 at about 8.15 a.m., Manohar Singh (PW-2) submitted a written report to ASI Bajrang Lal (PW-20) in village Barwa indicating that he came to Barwa with his family in connection of marriage of his brother-in-law. In night at about 8 p.m., they went to village Barwa in Banori (marriage procession) from house of his father-in-law situated at Bawra stand. After Banori procession, they returned at about 9 p.m. to the house of his father-in-law Rewat Singh. His daughter "S" (name mentioned in the file and withheld to protect her identity) was also with them and thereafter, she accompanied children. In night, they thought that she would have slept with children. In morning at about 6.30 a.m., Kishan S/o Mahesh Kumawat came to them and told that informant's daughter is lying dead near road. Thereafter, he and his brother-in-law Prabhu Singh rushed to the road side, where his daughter "S" aged 10 years was lying dead near a tree of Kheep at the corner of road. They saw injuries on mouth and head of the deceased and her pant was blood stained. After removing her pant, it was noticed that she has been raped. Someone has raped and murdered his daughter etc.
4. ASI Bajrang Lal (PW-20) made his endorsement on this written report and sent the same to Police Station Udaipurwati with constable Tekchand for registration of crime, where an FIR (Ex.P-3) was registered on the above report being FIR No.73/2008 for commission of offences under Section 376, 302 of IPC.
5. During investigation, Panchayatnama was prepared, autopsy report of deceased was obtained from medical board, regarding rape vaginal swab was obtained after medical examination of deceased, site plan was prepared, samples of blood stained and control soils were taken from the place of occurence, clothes worn by deceased were seized, accused-appellant was arrested and report of his medical examination was obtained, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., recoveries of clothes and shoes were made from the accused-appellant which were worn by him at the time of occurence and were seized, foot prints of culprit were obtained from the scene of occurence, blood sample of accused-appellant was taken for DNA test. Samples of soils, clothes of deceased and clothes, shoes, samples of blood, semen, saliva of accused-appellant were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and after usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellant for commission of offence under Sections 302, 376, 363, 366 of IPC.
6. Learned trial court framed the charges for above offences against the accused-appellant brought before it for trial. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellant wh