Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 1184
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia & V.K. Mathur, JJ.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Pyarelal and Ors. – Respondents
D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 315 of 2016 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 2016
Decided On : 16-12-2016
For the Appellant : N.S. Dhakar
In a murder case, the prosecution must prove the evidence of last seen and the recovery of a shirt with human blood group 'B' on it is not sufficient to hold that the accused had committed the offence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - SECTION 27 EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 161 CRPC - SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT IN A MURDER CASE WHERE THE ACCUSED WAS ACQUITTED DUE TO LACK OF DIRECT EVIDENCE AND INSUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
On the night of 25th and 26th November 2011, Mohanlal Jat was murdered by causing injury to his head with a stone. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to secure the conviction of the accused, Pyarelal, as there was no direct evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of direct evidence and insufficient circumstantial evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the evidence of last seen, as the witness who claimed to have seen the accused with the deceased did not corroborate the statement. The court also held that the mere recovery of a shirt with human blood group 'B' on it was not sufficient to hold that the accused had committed the offence.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the evidence of last seen. 2. Whether the recovery of a shirt with human blood group 'B' on it was sufficient to hold that the accused had committed the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution failed to prove the evidence of last seen as the witness who claimed to have seen the accused with the deceased did not corroborate the statement. 2. The mere recovery of a shirt with human blood group 'B' on it was not sufficient to hold that the accused had committed the offence.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court and dismissed both the criminal leave to appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan and the criminal appeal filed by the complainant.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
1. On the intervening night of 25th and 26th November, 2011, on the road going from Sewad Badi to Sutot, murder of Mohanlal Jat, brother of Parmeshwari Devi (PW.9) was committed by causing injury on the head with a stone. As per prosecution the said murder was committed by Pyarelal @ Mahendra S/o Mahadevaram @ Madharam (hereinafter called Pyarelal).
2. There is no direct evidence available with the prosecution and hence, the prosecuting agency relied upon circumstantial evidence to secure conviction of accused-respondent Pyarelal.
3. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar vide impugned order dated 02.05.2016 recorded acquittal of accused-respondent Pyarelal. The acquittal of respondent Pyarelal has been assailed before this court by the complainant by filing D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 753/2016. State of Rajasthan has also filed D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 315/2016. Since the State of Rajasthan and the complainant have challenged the same impugned judgment, we shall decide criminal appeal filed by the complainant Parmeshwari (PW.9) and criminal leave to appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan, together.
4. Registry has pointed out that there is delay of eleven days in filing of the appeal, filed by the complainant. Complainant has also filed D.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 216/2016 to condone the delay in filing of the appeal.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant, for the reasons stated in the application, we accept the same and condone the delay in filing D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 753/2016.
6. Having condoned the delay we have taken the appeal preferred by the complainant and the leave to appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan for arguments and consideration.
7. Parmeshwari Devi (PW.9) sister of deceased Mohanlal had lodged FIR (Ex. P.34) wherein she stated that on 25.11.2011 at 5.00pm her brother Mohanlal had gone to Sewad. At 7.30pm she had a telephonic talk with Mohanlal. She further stated that Mohanlal at that time was at Pilaniya and he informed that he was with Bajrang Lal. Later, she made a telephonic call to Bajrang Lal. However, Bajrang Lal denied that the deceased Mohan Lal was present with him. In the FIR it was stated by Parmeshwari (PW.9) that her brother before his death was present along with Bajrang Lal Godara resident of Vijay Pura.
8. Investigating agency recorded statement of Bajrang Lal (PW.1) u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Bajrang Lal in court has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. In cross-examination, Bajrang Lal in cross examination deposed that Mohanlal was an alcoholic. He was of quarrelsome nature and used to pick-up fight with people under the influence of liquor.
9. Bhagirath Mal (PW.3) was resident of Sutot. The witness stated that on 25.11.2011 at about 5.00 PM his neighbour Mohanlal came to him with his sister Parmeshwari and informed him that he is going to Sewad Badi. The witness further stated that he was informed by Parmeshwari (PW.9) that she had left Mohanlal at Sewad alongwith Pyarelal s/o Mahadev Prasad. This witness also testified regarding the spot where the dead body was found.
10. Mohanlal (PW.4) stated that on 25.11.2011 at 8.00 PM he got a telephonic call from Parmeshwari and she inquired whether Mohanlal was with him or not. The witness replied to her that he will visit Bajranglal to enquire about the whereabouts of Mohanlal. This witness was also declared hostile to the prosecution as he replied from his previous statement to the police.
11. Beerbal (PW.5) proved the arrest memo (Ex. P.16) whereby respondent Pyarelal accused was arrested.
12. Shrawan Kumar (PW.6) is brother of deceased Mohanlal. The witness stated that on 25.11.2011 at 5.00 PM Mohanlal informed Parmeshwari that he is going to Sewad. The witness attested site plan (Ex. P.6) and only deposed in court about the facts heard by him from Parmeshwari (PW.9). Thus this witness has only narrated hearsay evidence.
13. Mahesh Kumar (PW.7) being
