Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 1624
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR, JJ.
Ramdhan S/o Mangilal Gurjar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2011
Decided On : 04-12-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. Doongar Singh.
For the Respondent: Mr. J.P.S Choudhary, PP.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution must rely on circumstantial evidence. The golden principles of circumstantial evidence laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda (surpa) must be satisfied before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - SECTION 3/25 ARMS ACT - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - DYING DECLARATION - RECOVERY OF GUN - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - GOLDEN PRINCIPLES - REASONABLE DOUBT - ACQUITTAL:
Fact of the Case:
Appellant Ramdhan was convicted by the trial court for the murder of his wife, Smt. Ajan, under Section 302 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of two eyewitnesses, Ramraj and Bunty, who were the sons of the deceased, and a dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased before her father and sisters. The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds that the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, the recovery of the gun was doubtful, and the dying declaration was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The eyewitnesses had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The recovery of the gun was doubtful as the gun belonged to one Ramswaroop, who had died prior to the incident, and the FSL report was contradictory. The dying declaration was also doubtful as the presence of the witnesses was not proved. The High Court held that the trial court had erred in convicting the appellant and allowed the appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the recovery of the gun was doubtful? 3. Whether the dying declaration was proved beyond reasonable doubt?
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The eyewitnesses had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The recovery of the gun was doubtful as the gun belonged to one Ramswaroop, who had died prior to the incident, and the FSL report was contradictory. The dying declaration was also doubtful as the presence of the witnesses was not proved. The High Court relied on the golden principles of circumstantial evidence laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sharda (surpa) to hold that the prosecution had failed to establish a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.
GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by appellant-Ramdhan, under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C challenging the judgment and sentence dated 28.01.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shahpura, Bhilwara in Session Case No. 64/2009 (18/2008) whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant for offence under Sections 302 of IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and passed following sentence:
302 of IPC
Life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional simple imprisonment.
3/25 of the Arms Act.
Three years' Rigorous Imprisonment along fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional simple imprisonment.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a verbal complaint was lodged by Magna Gurjar (PW.1) at Police Station-Phuliakalan, District Bhilwara on 14.02.2008 at M.G Hospital, Bhilwara, in which allegations were levelled by him that marriage of his sister, namely, Smt. Ajan was solemnized with accused appellant Ramdhan and from their wedlock, three issues were born. Yesterday, on 13.02.2008 at about 08.00 PM when he was at his residence, his nephew (sister's son), namely, Bunty came to his house and said that his father has inflicted gunshot injury in the stomach of his mother. Upon receiving such information, the complainant and his two sisters went to the house of deceased, Smt. Ajan and saw that deceased was lying on the floor injured and blood was oozing out. According to complainant, her husband-Ramdhan (appellant) was also sitting there, and upon enquiry being made by the complainant from his sister Smt. Ajan with regard incident, then Smt. Ajan informed that my husband-Ramdhan inflicted gunshot injury to me. The complainant and Nemichand and Prhalad Kumawat, took injured Smt. Ajan to hospital at Shahpura, where after examining the injured, she was referred to Bhilwara Hopsital. Injured Smt. Ajan, wife of the appellant was admitted at M.G Hopsital, Bhilwara. However, while under treatment on 14.02.2008 in the morning at 04.00 AM she died. As per complainant, accused appellant-Ramdhan caused gunshot injury to deceased Smt. Ajan and due to said injury she died.
3. Upon the aforesaid verbal report, Sabir Khan S.I), after recording the verbal information, registered a case vide F.I.R No. 25/2008 at 02.30 PM on 14.02.2008 and commenced the investigation.
4. During investigation, site plan of the place of occurrence (Ex.P/11) was prepared in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Hari Ram and Indulal. The pieces of bangles, blood stained mud/soil and control soil were taken in possession vide Ex.P/12 at 05.00 PM on 14.02.2008 The “Panchnama” (Ex.P/16) of the dead body was prepared in M.G Hospital at 09.00 AM on 14.02.2008 The dead of the deceased was subjected to postmortem and postmortem report (Ex.P/18) was obtained by the investigating officer, in which an opinion was given by the Medical Board that deceased died due to hemorrhage shock and due to multiple organ injury of gunshot.
5. After postmortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to complainant-Magnla Gurjar at 07.00 AM on 14.02.2008 The accused appellant was arrested and after arrest, information was given by him vide Ex.P/29 on 15.09.2008 at 02.15 PM for recovery of gun from his residential house and pursuant to said information, gun was recovered vide recovery memo (Ex.P/13) on 17.02.2008 at 11.15 AM in the presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Sojiram S/o Kanhaiyalal and Chhota S/o Jagannath Gujar. The weapon-gun as well as other articles were sent for chemical examination to the FSL vide communication dated 17.03.2008 by the S.P, District Bhilwara vide Ex.P/21.
6. During investigation, it was also found that gun, which is said to be recovered on the
