Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 619
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, Prakash Gupta, JJ.
Hanuman Hariyana Brahmin son of Prabhu Dayal & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 171, 241, 172, 173 of 2015
Decided On : 25-01-2017
For the Appellants :Mr. Ashvin Garg, Advocate, Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar, Smt. Savitri Devi Mr. Rajesh Goswami, Advocates.
For the Respondents: N.S. Dhakad PP.
Headnote:
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act. - Section 3(2)(5) - IPC. - Sections 302, 364, 201 and 120-B – conviction - acquitted of the offence - conducted autopsy o - complainant had learnt that his brother had not reached at the well. The said information was relayed by the neighbours - We many notice here that in the missing report (Exhibit-P/6), it was specifically stated that the complainant party has no suspicion against anybody, whereas, in the written report (Exhibit-P/11), needle of suspicion was raised towards - dead body was sent for post mortem. Dr. Satish Khandelwal (P.W.21), conducted autopsy on the dead body of Shankar Lal. In the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/34), a ligature mark was found around the neck of deceased. Viscera was sent to FSL. As per Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/34), the cause of death was Asphyxia due to strangulation - Held, It is, indeed, trite to state that the prosecution has to cover the long distance between “may be true” and “must be true”. Merely by flashing few pieces of evidence which are incomplete in their nature and scope, the prosecution does not succeed in establishing its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the prosecution succeeds in creating a strong suspicion against the accused, even then the accused cannot be convicted. For, convictions cannot be based on conjunctures or surmises, or on strong suspicion. The prosecution is required to prove its case through cogent and convincing evidence; each linking evidence has to form a chain which leads to the only conclusion that the crime could have been committed only by the accused person, or persons and by none other. [refer to Vijay Thakur v. State - On the touch stone of the law propounded by the Supreme Court to appreciate case of circumstantial evidence, we have no hesitation to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution has failed to connect the present appellants with the crime - Appeal allowed.
Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
1. Shankar Lal on 21.1.2011, at about 8:00 PM, left his house situated at village Khadka, District Dausa. He had not returned home, therefore, his brother Muthresh (P.W.5) on 22.1.2011, lodged missing report (Exhibit-P/6) at Police Station, Kolwa. In the missing report, it was stated that on 21.1.2011, at about 8:00, brother Shankar Lal had gone to the field of Bhomaram (P.W.11) to irrigate wheat crop from the well. It was stated that the field of Bhomaram was cultivated by Shankar Lal on the basis of Batai (share basis). The complainant had learnt that his brother had not reached at the well. The said information was relayed by the neighbours. They searched for him. It was further stated in the missing report that Shankar Lal was carrying a Mobile No. 9928747223 and upon call made, the phone was switched off. In the missing report suspicion was not raised against anybody.
2. On the next day, i.e. on 23.1.2011, Ladbai (P.W.7), sister of the deceased found dead body of Shankar Lal near Rajasthan Sr. Sec. School, Kundal. Resultantly, Muthresh (P.W.5) presented written report (Exhibit-P/11) before S.I. Devi Sahay (P.W.24).
3. In the written report (Exhibit-P/11), the complainant stated that his brother Shankar Lal on 21.1.2011 at about 8:30 PM had gone to irrigate the field taken by him on Batai. On 22.1.2011, in the morning at about 8:00 – 9:00 AM, Mamta wife of Shankar Lal had gone to see him at the field, where Bhomaram owner of the field informed that Shankar Lal had not come in the night to irrigate the field. Bhomaram and Mamta arrived at the house of the complainant. Thereafter, they searched for Shankar Lal in the relations and telephonic calls were also made to acquaintance but no whereabouts of Shankar Lal were known. On 23.1.2011 at about 6:00 PM, sister Ladbai had gone to fetch milk and she found dead body of Shankar Lal near wall of Rajasthan Sr. Sec. School Kundal. The complainant along with family members had gone to the spot. Police also arrived at the spot.
4. In the written report, the complainant raised suspicion against eleven persons, namely Arjun Lal, Mahesh, Kamlesh, Pawan, Ravi son of Arjun and Laxman @ Lattu resident of Khori Khurd, Dashrath Singh Rajput, Ramniwas, Surjan son of Gangadhar, Sampat son of Ramniwas, Rajendra son of Surjan. It was stated in the written report that from the last 8 to 9 months, they were having dispute over the land and on 19.1.2011, Arjun Lal had left a threat that he will not leave Shankar Lal alive.
5. We many notice here that in the missing report (Exhibit-P/6), it was specifically stated that the complainant party has no suspicion against anybody, whereas, in the written report (Exhibit-P/11), needle of suspicion was raised towards Arjun Lal.
6. The dead body was sent for post mortem. Dr. Satish Khandelwal (P.W.21), conducted autopsy on the dead body of Shankar Lal. In the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/34), a ligature mark was found around the neck of deceased. Viscera was sent to FSL. As per Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/34), the cause of death was Asphyxia due to strangulation. Dr. Satish Khandelwal (P.W.21) relying upon the report of FSL (Exhibit-P/35), opined that no poison was found in the viscera of the deceased, hence, it was not a case of poison. Dr. Satish Khandelwal (P.W.21) further opined that poison was found on the clothes of the deceased, hence, it cannot be ruled out that an attempt was made to project that the deceased had consumed poison. After the report of Post Mortem, it stood proved that it was a case of homicidal death.
7. In the present case, on the basis of written report (Exhibit-P/11), a formal FIR bearing No.14/2011 was registered at Police Station Kolwa, District Dausa. During investigation, Arjun Lal son of Shri Gangadhar, Hanuman son of Prabhu Dayal and Smt. Savitri Devi wife of Khairati Lal were nominated as accused. The report of investigation was submitted in the court of concerned Magistrate. The said c
