Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia and Prakash Gupta, JJ.
Raju - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – State
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2014 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2015
With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2015
Decided On : 04-01-2016
CRIMINAL APPEAL - FOOT MOLDS - FINGERPRINTS - RECOVERIES - ORNAMENTS - BLOOD STAINED CLOTHES - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - SECTION 5 OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF PRISONERS ACT, 1920 - SECTION 27 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 437-A OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SECTION 6.26 OF THE RAJASTHAN POLICE RULES, 1965 - RULE 7.31 OF THE RAJASTHAN POLICE RULES, 1965 - SECTION 4 AND SECTION 5 OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF PRISONERS ACT, 1920 - SECTION 25 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 460 AND SECTION 302 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
Fact of the Case:
Jadawali Devi was murdered in her house in Bansoor, Alwar district, on the intervening night of 21st and 22nd April, 2006. Her body was found with both feet amputated and silver ornaments missing. The police registered a case under Section 460 IPC and arrested three accused, Lala Ram, Raju, and Balli. Balli died during the trial. The trial court convicted and sentenced Lala Ram and Raju to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and ten years RI under Section 460 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court acquitted the accused, Lala Ram and Raju, of all charges due to lack of sufficient evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances to conclude that only the accused committed the offense. The court held that the foot molds and fingerprints lifted from the scene were not taken in the presence of a magistrate, as required by law, and therefore could not be relied upon. The court also found that the recovery of ornaments from the accused was not witnessed by any independent witness and that the identification of the ornaments was conducted after a delay of two months and seventeen days, raising suspicion of tampering. The court further held that the recovery of blood-stained clothes from the accused was not incriminating as the forensic report showed no blood on the clothes.
Issues: 1. Whether the foot molds and fingerprints lifted from the scene were taken in accordance with the law and could be relied upon as evidence? 2. Whether the recovery of ornaments from the accused was properly witnessed and identified? 3. Whether the recovery of blood-stained clothes from the accused was incriminating?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the foot molds and fingerprints lifted from the scene were not taken in the presence of a magistrate, as required by Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 and Rule 6.26 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965. Therefore, they could not be relied upon as evidence. 2. The court held that the recovery of ornaments from the accused was not witnessed by any independent witness and that the identification of the ornaments was conducted after a delay of two months and seventeen days, raising suspicion of tampering. Therefore, the recovery of ornaments could not be considered as reliable evidence. 3. The court held that the recovery of blood-stained clothes from the accused was not incriminating as the forensic report showed no blood on the clothes.
Final Decision: The High Court acquitted the accused, Lala Ram and Raju, of all charges due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
On the intervening night of 21st and 22nd of April, 2006 in Bansoor near village Moja Todiya Ka Bas in a house jointly owned by family of Meena Ram (P.W.2) the complainant, his mother Smt. Jadawali Devi was murdered by way of strangulation. On 22.4.2006 at about 6:15 AM, Meena Ram (P.W.2) along with his neighbour Rohitash (P.W.1) learnt about the death of his mother Jadawali Devi. They further found that both her feet were also amputated. Immediately thereafter, on 22.4.2006, at about 7:15 AM, Meena Ram (P.W.2) presented a written report (Exhibit-P/9) before SHO, Police Station Bansoor regarding registration of the case.
2. In written report (Exhibit-P/9) the complainant stated that his mother Smt. Jadawali Devi was residing in a joint house in the fields. On 22.4.2006, at about 6:15 AM, he learnt in the street that somebody has murdered his mother. He along with Rohitash (P.W.1) came to their house built in the fields and found that on the back of the house, dead body of his mother was lying. Her both feet were amputated and from both feet two silver anklets each, one neckband and one bracelet each from the hands, in all bearing 2 Kg of silver were missing. Silver ornaments were not found on her body. In the complaint it was stated that some unidentified persons after committing murder of his mother and amputating both feet had taken away silver anklets, one neckband and bracelets. Near dead body, one axe, one Kurpa (short handle cutting tool with flag raised, used for digging soil) and one board of wood, stained with blood were found.
3. The written report (Exhibit-P/9) through Constable Dharampal Singh (P.W.15) was sent from the spot to the police station. ASI Rameshwar Dayal, in absence of Hanuman Singh was incharge of police station. He registered a formal FIR (Exhibit-P/10) bearing No.105/2006 at Police Station Bansoor, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 460 IPC. During investigation of the said FIR, the investigating agency nominated Lala Ram s/o Chothmal, Raju s/o Ram Avtar and Balli @ Balbir s/o Amilal, as accused. All the three accused were sent for the trial. During the course of the trial, Balli @ Balbir expired and proceedings were dropped against him.
4. The court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Behror, District Alwar vide impugned judgment dated 29.3.2014 convicted both the appellants Lala Ram and Raju for the offences under Sections 302 and 460 IPC and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them as under:-
"U/s 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional imprisonment.
U/s 460 IPC to undergo ten years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional imprisonment.
5. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, Raju instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 592/2014, whereas Lal Ram preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444/2015. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction rendered and order of sentence passed by the trial court. It is prayed in the appeals filed that the appellants be acquitted of all the charges. Since both the appeals assail the common judgment, we shall decide both the appeals together.
6. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence, there being no eyewitness account. To secure the conviction of the appellants, the prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances:
(i) Foot molds lifted from the spot, taking of specimen molds of the foot of the accused and report submitted by the expert to the effect that the foot molds lifted from the spot tally with the specimen foot molds.
(ii) Lifting of chance prints from the spot, taking specimen fingerprints of the accused and report of FSL regarding matching of the fingerprints.
(iii) Recoveries from the place of occurrence.
(iv) Recoveries of ornaments from the accused in pursuance of disclosure statement
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
