Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN
NIRMALJIT KAUR, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, JJ.
Sher Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 13 of 2011
Decided On : 04-09-2018
Criminal Appeal - Murder - Section 302 IPC - [302 IPC] - The court discussed the principles of circumstantial evidence and emphasized the need for cogent and complete evidence to sustain a conviction. The lack of corroborative evidence, contradictions in witness statements, and doubtful recoveries led to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Gena Ram based on circumstantial evidence. The star witness was declared hostile, and there were contradictions in witness statements and doubts about the recoveries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The lack of corroborative evidence, contradictions in witness statements, and doubtful recoveries led to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The key issues included the reliability of witness statements, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, and the credibility of the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for complete and cogent circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction. It highlighted the principles of circumstantial evidence and the requirement for evidence to be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge of murder. The judgment of conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant Sher Singh against the judgment dated 19.11.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.13/10 by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment.
2. The brief facts for appreciating the controversy in the present case are that on 08.02.2010 at 12.30 AM a written report was filed by Meghraj stating therein that he is the resident of Bangla Nagar, Bikaner and is having a plot in the Karni industrial area, Bikaner being Plot No.G-21. On this plot he is having a workshop of truck body building titled as "Meghraj Truck Body Building". The aforesaid workshop is not operational and Gena Ram S/o Om Prakash is working as Chowkidar there. Gena Ram stays in the workshop only. On 06.02.2010 the Khalasi of their Truck Sher Singh Rajput came to the workshop for staying there for two days. Whether to allow Sher Singh to stay in the workshop or not, Gena Ram made a telephone call seeking his permission which was granted. On 07.02.2010 at around 11.00 PM the owner of the grocery shop Raju (whose shop is across their shop) telephoned his son Om Prakash informing him that the gate of their workshop is lying in opened condition. On this information, he and his son Om Prakash went to the workshop and found that Gena Ram was lying in the 'veranda' and his body was covered with a blanket and on removing the same they found that Gena Ram's face and head were having several injuries and the dead body was lying in a pool of blood. It appeared that face and head of Gena Ram were hammered with a solid blunt iron object. It was further stated that Gena Ram died because of the injuries. It was further stated in this complaint that a bicycle which was kept in the workshop was also missing. On being asked about the bicycle, Raju informed that he saw Sher Singh going out of the workshop at around 5.30 PM at a fast speed. It was further stated in the complaint that since accused Sher Singh Khalasi was with Gena Ram for the whole day they had a doubt that Sher Singh had killed Gena Ram. The dead body of Gena Ram was lying on the spot. On this complaint, a formal FIR was registered on 08.02.2010 and the same was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 08.02.2010 at 11.55 AM and police conducted investigation.
3. After the investigation police filed challan against the accused-appellant.
4. Learned Trial Court framed charge against the accused-appellant Sher Singh for the offence under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of Gena Ram.
5. The accused denied the charge and sought for trial in the matter.
6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and 30 documents were exhibited.
7. No defence witness was examined and only a document Ex.D-1 which is police statement of Om Prakash was exhibited.
8. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he is innocent, he did not come to the workshop of Meghraj Ji and he has not killed anybody. The Baniyan has not been recovered from him. He has not given an information with respect to the recovery of Patti (Blade) nor the same has been recovered from him.
9. Learned trial Court after hearing the arguments from both the sides, taking into consideration the statement of witnesses and after going through the same, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant vide judgment dated 19.11.2010.
10. For appreciating the facts in detail, we have gone through the statements recorded during the trial along with documents produced and exhibited before the trial Court.
11. The present is a case of circumstantial evidence and the entire case of the prosecution hinges on the testimony
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
