Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 780
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, JJ.
Yogendra Kumar Kumawat - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 280 of 2016
Decided On : 13-08-2019
For the Appellant : Rajendra Choudhary.
For the Respondents: Anil Joshi, Public Prosecutor.
Circumstantial evidence can be used to prove a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt if the evidence is strong enough to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - IDENTIFICATION - RECOVERIES - RELIABILITY OF WITNESSES - APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his sister-in-law, Manju. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of an eyewitness who saw the appellant leaving the victim's house shortly before her body was found, the recovery of the appellant's bloodstained clothes and a knife from a room he had rented, and the identification of the appellant by the eyewitness in a test identification parade.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the eyewitness's testimony was reliable, that the recoveries were properly made, and that the identification of the appellant was convincing. The court also rejected the appellant's alibi defense.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the eyewitness's testimony was reliable. 3. Whether the recoveries were properly made. 4. Whether the identification of the appellant was convincing. 5. Whether the appellant's alibi defense was credible.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on the following evidence: - The eyewitness's testimony was reliable because he had no motive to lie and his testimony was consistent with the other evidence in the case. - The recoveries were properly made because they were made in accordance with the law and there was no evidence that they were planted. - The identification of the appellant was convincing because the eyewitness had a clear view of the appellant and he was able to identify him in a test identification parade. 2. The court rejected the appellant's alibi defense because it was not supported by any evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the appellant's conviction and sentence.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Mehta, J.
1. The appellant Yogendra Kumar Kumawat has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 28.01.2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 6, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No. 10/2013 (NCV No. 08/2016).
| Offence Under Section | Sentence | Fine | Fine Default sentences |
| 302 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs. 50,000/- |
|
2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
3. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:-
Inder Singh (PW-1) lodged a written report (Ex. P/1) to the SHO, Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur on 20.10.2010 at 06.00 pm. alleging inter alia that on 20.10.2010, in the afternoon, he received telephonic information that his sister Manju had fallen ill and he should reach the hospital. The informant was nearing the hospital when he got a call from his wife to reach at his sister's house. On reaching there, he saw the dead body of his sister Manju lying on the floor of her matrimonial home at Chandna Bhakhar. He looked at the body of his sister and noticed blood on her face and on the other parts of her body. A large wound was visible on her neck which appears to have been inflicted by a sharp weapon. His brother-in-law Guman Singh told him that a gold chain and a gold ring worn by Smt. Manju was missing and a safe lying inside the house had been disturbed.
4. On the basis of report aforestated, an FIR No. 466/2010 (Ex. P/51) came to be registered at the Police Station Pratap Nagar for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The investigation was undertaken by Rajendra Prasad Diwakar (PW-24), SHO, Police Station Pratap Nagar who prepared the formal documents viz. Panchnama Lash (Ex. P/3), site inspection plan, site inspection memo; lifted the blood lying at the place of incident in a cotton swab; seized the blood stained clothes of the deceased and after autopsy, he handed over the dead body of Manju to the family members for cremation. The place of incident was got photographed. During investigation, Shankarlal Tailor (PW-4), a neighbour of Guman Singh, gave a statement (Ex. D/1) to the I.O. on 21.10.2010 stating that on the fateful day, between 01.00-02.00 pm., he had returned home from the market and was parking his motorcycle outside his house, when he looked towards the house of Guman Singh. At that time, an unknown person aged about 23-24 years came out of the house of Guman Singh and passed by the witness. The unknown person was wearing a dark coloured pant and full sleeved shirt. A little later, the witness heard cries coming out from Guman Singh's house. The neighbouring females collected and went to Guman Singh's house, they saw Guman Singh's wife lying on the floor in a bleeding condition. They raised a hue and cry on which, the witness also went to the house of Guman Singh and saw the woman in a badly injured condition. The witness with the aid of Bhairu Singh boarded Guman Singh's wife in Bhairu Singh's car and took her to the MDM Hospital, Jodhpur. On receiving the information, Guman Singh also reached there. Guman Singh's wife passed away. Thereafter, they brought the dead body back home. During the course of investigation, the finger of suspicion was pointed towards the appellant who had done the job of fixing tiles in Guman Singh's house some days earlier. On getting this lead, the investigating officer arrested the accused appellant on 24.10.2010 (Ex. P/16). He was kept Baparda. The accused was put up for identification at the hands of Shankar Lal who correctly identified him to be the person who was seen coming out from the house of Guman Singh on the day of incident. On the voluntary informations provided by the accused to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the I.O. proceeded
