Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JJ.
Vijay Kumar - Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 921 of 2017
Decided On : 27-03-2019
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC AND SECTION 25 (1-B) (B) OF THE ARMS ACT - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - RECOVERY OF BLOOD-STAINED CLOTHES, MOBILE, AND GUPTI - IDENTIFICATION OF PLACE OF OCCURRENCE - INCONCLUSIVE BLOOD GROUP ANALYSIS - ABSENCE OF MOTIVE - DOUBTFUL RECOVERIES - ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for the murder of Gopal Das and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 (1-B) (b) of the Arms Act. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of blood-stained clothes, a mobile phone, and a Gupti (a sharp-edged weapon) at the instance of the accused, as well as the identification of the place of occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances to connect the accused with the crime. The blood group analysis of the recovered items was inconclusive, and the place of recovery was not in the exclusive possession of the accused. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the crime and that the injuries on the accused's hands were not linked to the alleged crime.
Issues: 1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the recovery of blood-stained clothes, mobile phone, and Gupti at the instance of the accused was sufficient to connect him with the crime. 3. Whether the identification of the place of occurrence was of any consequence in establishing the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the recoveries were doubtful, the blood group analysis was inconclusive, and the place of recovery was not in the exclusive possession of the accused. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove the motive for the crime and that the injuries on the accused's hands were not linked to the alleged crime.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused, and acquitted him of the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 (1-B) (b) of the Arms Act.
BANWARI LAL SHARMA, J.
1. Appellant-accused- Vijay Kumar @ Bijju preferred this jail appeal assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Ajmer, in Session Case No. 94/2012, whereby, learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Ajmer convicted the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302 IPC and Section 25 (1-B) (b) of the Arms Act and sentenced him as under:-
Under Section 302 IPC
Life term imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in case of default in payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months additional rigorous imprisonment.
Under Section 25 (1-B) (b) of the Arms Act
three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-, in case of default in payment of fine, to further undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment.
2. The brief and relevant facts giving arise to this appeal are that on 29.01.2011, complainant-PW-1- Gangadhar Mankani submitted a written report (Exhibit-P-1) before S.H.O. Police Station- Christian Ganj, Ajmer stating therein that he is doing business of construction and interior decoration and residing at house No. 20/37 Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. His father Shri Gopal Das Ji has a shop in the name of Gopal Paints & Hardware which is about 250 meters away from his house. Today i.e. on 29.01.2011, his father went to shop at about 8:00-8:30 a.m. Complainant-PW-1 returned to his house at about 7:45 p.m. His wife- Uma and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Bhagwanti told him that father (Gopal Das Ji) had not returned as yet. Thereupon he made a telephonic call to his father, it was out of range. Thereafter, he called family servant- Kalu, he told him that he had returned from the shop at 6:30 p.m. and at that time Dada (Gopal Das Ji) was at the shop. Thereafter, he had sent his nephew- Nitin and son- Prashant to shop and after having meals he also went to Betel nut shop and after taking tobacco and cigarette, he also went to his father’s shop where Nitin and Prashant met him and they were crying. They told him that somebody committed murder of Baba (Gopal Das Ji). Uncle- Kishore also came there, they went to police station. Thereafter, police reached on the spot. It was informed to police that someone committed murder of his father by some sharp edged and pointed weapon and inflicted injuries on head, mouth, throat and abdomen of father repeatedly. Dead body is lying in the shop. The blood is spreading at the shop and murder has been committed by the murderer between 7:00-9:00 p.m.
3. On the aforesaid report, FIR No. 58/2011 for offence under Section 302 IPC was registered at Police Station- Christian Ganj, Ajmer and investigation commenced.
4. During investigation, police arrested accused-appellant vide arrest memo (Exhibit-P-94) on 07.02.2011 at 5:00 p.m. At instance of accused-appellant trouser, t-shirt, shoes, Gupti and one mobile were recovered. The appellant was chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 302 IPC and 4/25 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, charge-sheet was filed on 28.04.2011 before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 3, Ajmer. Since the offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by Sessions Judge, therefore, learned Magistrate after complying the provisions enshrined in Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer on the even date under Section 209 Cr.P.C.
5. Learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer vide order dated 15th June, 2011 assigned the matter for trial to learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Ajmer.
6. Vide order dated 12.07.2011, after hearing on charge, charges were framed against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 459, 302 IPC and 4/25 of the Arms Act. The charges were explained to the accused-appellant, he denied the same and claimed for trial.
7. During trial vide order date
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
