SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Raj) 381

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS & G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, JJ.
Jagroop Singh, S/o Hakam Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 1994
Decided On : 17-04-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. M.K. Garg.
For the Respondent: Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP.

Important Point – Law regarding admissibility of circumstantial evidence is no longer res integra.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 - Appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the accused-appellants under Section 302/34 of IPC – Case is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence – Law regarding admissibility of circumstantial evidence is no longer res integra – Chain linking the accused to the crime must be unerringly clear and certain - Prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case - Evidence of the prosecution is improbable and unreliable - F.I.R is delayed without any cogent explanation - Attitude of natural mother is also unrealistic and unbelievable - Under the circumstances both the accused appellants are entitled to get benefit of doubt - Order passed by learned trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants is set aside -

       Result – Appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Moolchandani, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11/08/1994 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No 8/91 by which the accused-appellants are convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- in default thereto to undergo for one month’s rigorous imprisonment and both have also been awarded two year’s rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 of IPC.

2. The contents of Ex.P.20 F.I.R. No.328 dated 17.10.1990 reads as under :-

^^lsokesa

Jheku Fkkuknkj lkgc]

guqekux<+ taŒA

Jheku] fuosnu gS fd ge lkr HkkbZ gSaA lcls cM+k gkfde flag mlls NksVk ikyk flag mlls NksVk ftrk flag mlls NksVk eSa esjs ls NksVk xksjk flag mlls NksVk vej flag mlls NksVk cydkSj flag gSA ge lc vyx&vyx jgrs gSaA gkfde flag esjs pkpk y{e.kflag ds xksn x;k gqvk Fkk] gkfde flag us cSad ls VªSDVj ykWu ij fy;k FkkA mldk ykWu gkfde flag ls Hkjk ugha x;k rc gkfde flag us viuh 20 ch?kk tehu pd 25 ,y-,y-MCY;q- esa xq#nso flag tVfl[k vkSj tUMk fl[kku dks cspuh rg dj xq#nso flag ls nks yk[k #i;s ysdj VªsDVj dh fd'r Hkj nhA o tehu dk dCtk xq#nso flag dks ns fn;kA xq#nso flag us [kkyh tehu esa dqN fnu igys pus Hkh cht fn;s FksA rkjh[k 14-10-90 dks eSa [ksr esa FkkA esjh ikuh dh ckjh FkhA xq#nso flag o mlds lkFk pkj&ikap vkneh vkSj FksA djhc v<+kbZ&rhu cts dh ckr gS fd VªsDVj ij gkfde flag o mldk yM+dk tx#i flag o gkfde flag dh vkSjr eqŒ clUr dkSj o tx#i flag dh vkSjr pkjks tus p<+dj vk;sA gkfde flag o gkfde flag dh vkSjr [ksr esa mrj x,A gkfde flag ds ikl ,d ukyh 12 cksj dh ykbZlasl dh cUnwd FkhA gkfde flag us cUnwd dk ,d Qk;j xq#nso flag th oxSjk dh rjQ fd;k mUgksaus gkfde flag dh cUnwd idM+ yh Fkh] tx#i flag o mldh vkSjr VªsDVj ysdj vkxs pys x;sA gkfde flag o mldh vkSjr nksuksa xkao dh rjQ jokuk gks x,] eSaus blds ckn esjs HkkbZ gkfde flag dks eSaus ugha ns[kkA vkt lqcg djhc lkr cts esjh HkkHkh clUr dkSj esjs ikl ?kj vkbZA og eq>s dgk fd rsjs HkkbZ gkfde flag dh ryk'k djks og brokj ls gh irk ugha dgha pyk x;k] ckn esa xkao esa ;g lquk fd n'kZuflag ds [ksr esa ,d vkneh dh yk'k fMXxh esa iM+h gqbZ gSA iqfyl tc ekSds ij vk xbZ Fkh rc eSa Hkh ekSds ij pyk x;kA yk'k fMXxh ls ckgj fudkyh ftlds gkFk iSj lkQk ls cU/ks gq, Fks tks yk'k esjs cM+s HkkbZ gkfde flag dh FkhA eSaus f'kuk[r dj yhA esjs HkkbZ gkfde flag o xq#nso flag dk tehu dk vkilh >xM+k t:j gSA esjs HkkbZ gkfde flag dks fdlh us gkFk&ikao cka/kdj dRy dj n'kZuflag dh fMXxh esa Mky fn;kA nj[okLr is'k dj vtZ gS fd dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsaA**

3. Heard both the sides, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that all the witnesses of the prosecution except PW.1 Smt. Gulab Kaur have become hostile, so far as testimony of Smt. Gulab Kaur is concerned, it is also not reliable because a real mother cannot keep alleged assassination of her own son concealed for days together, initially morgue against unknown was registered and subsequently a false story was invented through PW.1 Gulab Kaur, it is quite unnatural that a mother, whose own son is allegedly taken away in a suspicious way with some ulterior motive to be harmed or eliminated, would not raise alarm, rescue or resist the killing of her own son, from the clutches of deceased’s wife or his son, motive of the offence has also not been established, prosecution has failed to establish as to what was the “reason and motive” behind the alleged murder, which is a paramount consideration for cases relating to murder. A mother, who observed that after untoward body of his son is thrown in water pond, would certainly cry and after witnessing the occurrence, would rush to her own home and convey the crime to rest of the family members, disclosing the names of wrong doers, but nothing of this kind has taken place, which makes the story of the prosecution highly doubtful and a mother will never conceal murder of his own son for days together, moreover, all the witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the version of the prosecution, attitude of Smt.







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top