Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 1305
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, JJ.
GALJI - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2011
Decided On : 16-05-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: J.P.S. Choudhary P.P.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime charged.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - NATA MARRIAGE - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - SECTION 326 IPC - SECTION 324 IPC - SECTION 323 IPC - EVIDENCE ACT - WITNESSES - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - FSL REPORT - POST MORTEM REPORT - INJURY REPORT - CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS - CASTE PANCHAYAT - DOMESTIC DISPUTE - FAMILY MEMBERS - EYE WITNESSES - INTENTION - MOTIVE - AGGRAVATED INJURIES - SEVERITY OF INJURY - CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES - CONSISTENCY OF STATEMENTS - INDEPENDENT WITNESSES - RELIABILITY OF EVIDENCE - REASONABLE DOUBT - BURDEN OF PROOF - STANDARD OF PROOF - APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE - EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL SCRUTINY - LEGAL PRINCIPLES - JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - RATIO DECIDENDI.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Galji, was convicted by the trial court for the murder of his wife, Meera, and for causing grievous and simple injuries to his parents, Rakia and Sonki, under Sections 302, 326, 324, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant challenged the conviction in the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction of the appellant. It found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the murder of his wife and caused injuries to his parents. The court relied on the evidence of eye witnesses, medical evidence, FSL report, post mortem report, and injury report to conclude that the appellant was guilty of the offenses charged.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the murder of his wife and caused injuries to his parents? 2. Whether the evidence on record was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the murder of his wife and caused injuries to his parents. The court relied on the following evidence to reach this conclusion: * The evidence of eye witnesses, including the appellant's brother, Suraj, and his mother, Sonki, who testified that they saw the appellant attacking the deceased with an axe. * The medical evidence, which showed that the deceased had died as a result of a sharp-edged weapon injury to the neck, and that the appellant's parents had sustained grievous and simple injuries. * The FSL report, which found human blood on the axe and other articles recovered from the scene of the crime. * The post mortem report and injury report, which corroborated the medical evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant.
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
The matter comes up before this Special Division Bench constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to have the sittings on Saturdays. However, we are constrained to note that as always, the Lawyers, even the ones provided by the Legal Services Authority, are not there to assist the Court.
2. We have waited for a considerable time, and in, out of the ten matters, which were listed, not even a single Lawyer from the accused side is available, for making submissions and provide assistance to the Court.
3. Repeated requests to the Bar by Hon'ble the Chief Justice as well as the persuasions made by us have failed to ensure a minimum requirement of assistance from the Lawyers on the side of the accused, on such Saturdays.
4. Lawyers provided by the Legal Services Authority are also not available, which makes the situation all the more concerning.
5. To address the pendency of the pending criminal appeals, where the accused are in jail, this Special Division Bench has been constituted to sit on Saturdays, and therefore, to justify the sitting, we have taken the assistance of the learned Public Prosecutor to go, in depth, into the records of this criminal appeal, and have satisfied ourselves from all aspects of criminal jurisprudence before proceeding with this judgment.
6. We have also taken note of the judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Hari Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.Criminal Appeal No.130/1988 decided on 02.01.2017) and Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan (D.B.Criminal Appeal No.407/1989 decided on 15.11.2016), wherein it was contemplated as to whether a criminal appeal could be finally decided without the assistance of learned counsel for the accused, and the Hon'ble Division Bench, in this regard, has made the following observations, while relying upon the principles judicially adumbrated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 222 :-
In Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan (supra) :
1. No one appears for the Appellant when the appeal is called out for hearing despite power filed on his behalf.
2. The Appellant stands convicted to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC alongwith fine and default stipulation in Sessions Trial Case No. 15/1986, dated 19.10.1989 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajsamand.
3. The appeal was instituted on 24.10.1989 and the Appellant enlarged on bail on 16.11.1989. Considering the age of the appeal, the period since grant of bail to the Appellant and absence of representation on his behalf, we are not inclined to adjourn the matter further in view of observations in (Surya Baksh Singh v. State of U.P., (2014) 14 SCC 222) as follows :-
"25....We reiterate that there is an alarming and sinister increase in instances where convicts have filed appeals, apparently with a view to circumvent and escape undergoing the sentences awarded against them. The routine is to file an appeal, apply and get enlarged on bail or get exempted from surrender, and thereafter wilfully to become untraceable or unresponsive. It is the bounden duty cast upon the Judge not merely to ensure that an innocent person is not punished but equally not to become a mute spectator to the spectacle of the convict circumventing his conviction. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution, quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J in State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh.) If the court is derelict in doing its duty, the social fabric will be rent asunder and anarchy will rule everywhere. It is, therefore, imperative to put an end to such practice by the expeditious disposal of appeals....."
4. The appeal has therefore been taken up for consideration with assistance of Learned State Counsel who has very fairly and thoroughly taken us through the records of the case, the exhibits and the evidence which has greatly facilitated us in disposing the appeal."
In Hari Ram & Ors. (supra) :
"1. The present appeals arise from
