Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 485
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Hemant Kumar Sharma son of Shri Ramavtar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan through its Public Prosecutor - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2011
Decided On : 09-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Mr. Amar Kumar
For the Respondent: Mrs. Sonia Shandilya
In a circumstantial evidence case, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent with guilt, conclusive, and exclude all other hypotheses. The chain of evidence must be complete, leaving no reasonable ground for innocence. Where the evidence fails to meet these criteria, a conviction cannot stand.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE - CONVICTION OVERTURNED: In a circumstantial evidence case, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent with guilt, conclusive, and exclude all other hypotheses. The chain of evidence must be complete, leaving no reasonable ground for innocence. Where the evidence fails to meet these criteria, a conviction cannot stand.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Hemant Kumar Sharma, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including last seen evidence, motive, and recoveries made at the instance of the appellant. However, several witnesses turned hostile, and the evidence was found to be insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the chain of circumstances sought to be proved against the appellant was not complete and did not exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The court also found that the evidence was not of a conclusive nature and tendency and did not exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the appellant's guilt. 2. Whether the evidence was of a conclusive nature and tendency and excluded every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing to the appellant's guilt. The court also held that the evidence was not of a conclusive nature and tendency and did not exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
This appeal has been filed by Hemant Kumar Sharma challenging judgment dated 16.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby he has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 and 201/302 IPC and sentenced, under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and under Section 201/302 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Facts of the case are that Duli Chand(P.W.12) submitted a written report(Exhibit P-32) to SHO, Police Station Laxmangarh on 17.05.2009 at Dando Ka Kuwa stating therein that his younger brother Chajuram used to run a book stall at Bus Stand, Laxmangarh. His wife Babita telephoned the informant on 14.05.2009 and informed that Chajuram was missing since 13.05.2009 and had not returned back home. She also informed that Hemant Sharma owed to Chajuram a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hemant Shama informed her that he had already paid to Chajuram a sum of Rs. 97,000/- on 13.05.2009 and left him in the market. He already had Rs. 3,000/-. She was worried because Chajuram was not traceable for last two days. Informant reached the house of Chajuram and made enquiries, which revealed that Hemant had taken Chajuram with him at 1.00 P.M. on 13.05.2009 in the presence of his son Sonu on the pretext that he would return his money. Chajuram left the book stall with him and asked his son to take care of his son Sonu. Thereafter, he was not traceable. His dead body had been found in the well (‘Dhandon Ka Kuwan’) on 17.05.2009 with multiple injuries. Hemant Sharma was a teacher in Bagadi Private School. He took Chajuram with him on the pretext of returning money and thereafter caused injuries to him and threw his body in the well. Action be taken against him.
3. On the basis of above report, a formal F.I.R. No. 116/2009(Exhibit P-44) was registered at Police Station Laxmangarh, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. The Investigating Agency embarked upon investigation of the offence. During the course of investigation, inquest proceedings were drawn on dead body of the deceased, certain seizures were made from the place from where dead body was recovered, the dead body was subjected to postmortem examination, the accused appellant was arrested, certain information under Section 27 of Evidence Act was elicited from the accused and some recoveries were effected pursuant to information given by him under Section 27 of Evidence Act, site plan of the place of incident was prepared. The recoveries effected as also the seizures made from the place of incident, were sent for chemical examination to F.S.L., F.S.L. report was obtained, etc. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C., in the court of concerned Magistrate, Laxmangarh. The case being triable by a Court of Session, was committed to the Sessions Court, Sikar from where, it was made over to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. To secure conviction of the accused-appellant, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and got 46 documents exhibited. In explanation under Sections 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded false implication as also innocence. However, in defence, neither any witness was produced nor any document was exhibited by him. Upon completion of trial, the trial court vide judgment dated 16.12.2010 convicted and sentenced the accused( 4 of 21) appellant in the manner indicated he
