Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, JJ.
Rahul Tyagi - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2014, 970 of 2014, 971 of 2014
Decided On : 01-08-2018
Penal Code, 1860 – Section 364-A r/w120-B, 328 & 344 – Evidence Act 1872 – Section 13, 27 & 65B – Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 – Sections 4 and 5 – Criminal Procedure Code, Section 100, 161 & 164 – Appeal against Judgment of conviction passed by trial court is legally not sustainable – Trial court failed to understand important fact of case that there is no medical and expert's evidence on record to prove that appellants had administered or caused any poison or any stupefying, intoxication or unwholesome drug or other thing with intent to cause hurt to (PW19) – No investigation was conducted by police on this point no offence under Section 328 & 344 IPC is made out – No direct or even circumstantial evidence against appellants that they agreed to do or caused to be done an illegal act by illegal means, such an agreement designated criminal conspiracy therefore ingredients mentioned under Section 13 of Act 1872 also not fulfilled – Held, Accused-appellant there is overwhelming evidence as to involvement of other accused-appellants – It clear that various incriminating circumstances against accused-appellants afford basis for drawing inference of their guilt, in that all such circumstances form complete chain so as not to leave any missing link which can be explained away by any hypothesis that may be compatible with innocence of anyone of them – It is not true for accused-appellant trite that "Rule of Criminal Justice" is that "Fouler the Crime Higher the Proof" and suspicious – Conviction strong or genuine not amount to legal conviction and supported in law – Prosecution failed to prove individual incriminating circumstance against accused-appellant Amishee inasmuch as those circumstances if joined together not constitute unbroken chain of circumstances without there being any missing links – Hence chain of circumstances against accused Amishee has several missing links entitling her to benefit of doubt – Appeals disposed of – (Paras : 57 to 59)
Facts of the case:
Appeal against Conviction – Judgment of conviction passed by trial court is legally not sustainable – Trial court failed to understand important fact of case that there is no medical and expert's evidence on record to prove that appellants had administered or caused any poison or any stupefying, intoxication or unwholesome drug or other thing with intent to cause hurt to (PW19) – No investigation was conducted by police on this point no offence under Section 328 & 344 IPC is made out – No direct or even circumstantial evidence against appellants that they agreed to do or caused to be done an illegal act by illegal means, such an agreement designated criminal conspiracy therefore ingredients mentioned under Section 13 of Act 1872 also not fulfilled.
Findings of the court:
Accused-appellant there is overwhelming evidence as to involvement of other accused-appellants – It clear that various incriminating circumstances against accused-appellants afford basis for drawing inference of their guilt, in that all such circumstances form complete chain so as not to leave any missing link which can be explained away by any hypothesis that may be compatible with innocence of anyone of them – It is not true for accused-appellant trite that "Rule of Criminal Justice" is that "Fouler the Crime Higher the Proof" and suspicious – Conviction strong or genuine not amount to legal conviction and supported in law – Prosecution failed to prove individual incriminating circumstance against accused-appellant Amishee inasmuch as those circumstances if joined together not constitute unbroken chain of circumstances without there being any missing links – Hence chain of circumstances against accused Amishee has several missing links entitling her to benefit of doubt.
Result: Appeals disposed of
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
These three criminal appeals on behalf of accused appellants, namely, Rahul Tyagi and Jai Kumar @ Bittu (appeal no. 932/2014), Sanjeev Sharma (appeal no. 970/2014) and Smt. Amishee (appeal no. 971/2014), are directed against judgment and order dated 02.08.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Kota (Rajasthan) in Sessions Case No. 32/2012, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-
Accused-appellants
Conviction under Section
Sentence
Amishee, Rahul Tyagi, Jai Kumar @ Bittu and Sanjeev Sharma
120-B, IPC
Each to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each. In default of payment of fine, each to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment
Amishee, Rahul Tyagi, Jai Kumar @ Bittu and Sanjeev Sharma
364-A read with 120-B, IPC
Each to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each. In default of payment of fine, each to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment
Rahul Tyagi, Jai Kumar @ Bittu and Sanjeev Sharma
344, IPC
Each to undergo two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default of payment of fine, each to further undergo one months additional simple imprisonment
Rahul Tyagi
328, IPC
To undergo three years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). In default of payment of fine, to further undergo one months additional simple imprisonment.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 11.06.2005 at 12:05 AM one Prakash Chand Choudhary (PW-47) gave an information on telephone at Police Station, Dadabari, Kota, that one boy Vaibhav, aged 16 years, son of his acquaintance Ramdev Agarwal, R/o Samudra Mahal, Dr. A.B. Road, Mumbai, was residing in Kamal Anshukor Hostel. On 10.06.2005, at about 12:00-01:00 PM, after locking the room Vaibhav had gone with someone but he has not returned back as yet. Pursuant to the above report, the police conducted investigation. In this connection, Bhagwat Singh Hingad (PW-52), S.H.O., Police Station Dadabari, Kota, visited Delhi, wherefrom he sent a written report (Exhibit P-55) through fax to the In-charge, Police Station, Dadabari, stating that the person, who came to the hostel and took Vaibhav with him, had written his name as S.R. Srivastava in the register of the hostel. The persons, who saw that person taking Vaibhav with him, could identify that person. Vaibhav was searched in all other hostels, inns, inhabited houses and various other places in Kota city. Police parties were dispatched to various places in and outside Rajasthan. The police however got a secret information that Vaibhav has been detained by some notorious persons, who are now demanding ransom for his release. Bhagwat Singh Hingad (PW-52) further mentioned that he along-with some other police officials reached Delhi for investigation of the matter where he learnt from some secret sources that relatives of Vaibhav Agarwal, in which one Motilal Oswal was also included, have come from Mumbai to Delhi to give ransom money to kidnappers to get Vaibhav released. From the allegation in the report, the offence under Sections 364 and 364A IPC was made out. It was stated that though informant {Shri Bhagwat Singh Hingad (PW-52)} requested the relatives of the abducted boy to make a complaint to the police but they refused and did not want to give complaint to the police. The In-charge of the Police Station was required to register an F.I.R. On that basis, F.I.R. No.239/2005 (Exhibit P-56) was registered for offence under Sections 364 and 364A of the IPC.
3. During the course of investigation, the Crime Branch of Delhi put the telephone of Vaibhav's father on survei
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
