Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 810
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, Banwari Lal Sharma, JJ.
Shankar Singh - Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 401 of 2013
Decided On : 02-04-2019
For the Appellant : Harshad Kapoor on behalf of Rajesh Kapoor
For the Respondents: Rekha Madnani, Public Prosecutor
Headnote:
Indian Penal Canal, 1860 - Sections 364, 365, 377 and 302 – Relationship - In present case criminal proceedings were set into motion by wife of appellant - She presented a written report before Police Station - In written report she stated that she was earlier married with one from her earlier marriage she was having a daughter victim aged before date of presentation of written report her matrimonial relationship with her earlier husband had turned sour - She left her earlier husband and performed marriage with present appellant from loins of present appellant gave birth to a son and a daughter - She further stated that her husband used to go for labour work and she used to remain at house for taking care of children - Her husband present appellant was addicted to liquor and alcohol - She further stated that her daughter from previous marriage was staying with her and this fact was not acceptable to present appellant and therefore he used to have altercation with complainant – Held, Wherein he stated that he was present at spot police conducted entire proceedings at spot and thereafter he was called at police station and his signatures were obtained - We may emphasize that is an independent witness and he has no animus against appellant - Having read testimony we are convinced that implicit reliance can be placed upon his testimony - Report submitted by Forensic Science Laboratory prove that on frock of deceased semen was found - However we may note that on clothes of accused no semen was detected - Thus even if we ignore report of Forensic Science Laboratory testimony is sufficient to complete chain of circumstances to arrive at conclusion that offence has been committed by appellant and by none else - We cannot become oblivious of fact that appellant was having a fiduciary relationship and he is stepfather of deceased victim - Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Present appellant is stepfather of victim aged 10 years (name of victim has been withheld to protect her identity). Case of the prosecution as set out in the charges is that the appellant kidnapped her stepdaughter on 08.05.2012 and thus committed offence punishable under Section 364, IPC. It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellant had performed unnatural offence with the victim and thereafter committed her murder. Thus the appellant was charged for the offences under Sections 364, 365, 377 and 302, IPC.
2. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Ajmer vide impugned judgment dated 05.02.2013 convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 364 and 365, IPC. The appellant was acquitted of offence under Section 377, IPC by extending benefit of doubt. Having convicted the appellant vide impugned judgment dated 05.02.2013 the trial Judge on the same day by an order of even date sentenced the appellant as under:-
| S. No. | For offence under Section | Sentenced to |
| 1 | 302, IPC | Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment |
| 2 | 364, IPC | Life imprisonment with fine of Rs 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment |
| 3 | 365, IPC | Seven years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment |
3. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence the appellant filed the present appeal through jail.
5. Mr. Rajesh Kapoor was appointed as Counsel by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority to defend the appellant. Today Mr. Harshad Kapoor on behalf of Shri Rajesh Kapoor, Counsel for the appellant has ably assisted us and has taken us through the evidence and has made a valiant effort to secure acquittal of the appellant.
6. Having perused the record and hearing the Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor, we are not inclined to accept the present appeal. Before we state our reasons it will be necessary to recapitulate brief facts of the case.
7. In the present case criminal proceedings were set into motion by wife of the appellant, namely Smt. Chooka Devi (PW- 1). On 09.05.2012 at about 9.30 a.m. she presented a written report (Exhibit P1) before the SHO, Police Station Alwar Gate, Ajmer. In the written report she stated that she was earlier married with one Jaisingh Rawat. From her earlier marriage she was having a daughter i.e. victim, aged 10 years. 7-8 years before the date of presentation of written report her matrimonial relationship with her earlier husband had turned sour. She left her earlier husband and performed marriage with the present appellant. From the loins of present appellant Smt. Chooka Devi (PW-1) gave birth to a son, namely Vishnu, aged 3 years and a daughter namely Payal, aged 1-1/2 years. She further stated that her husband used to go for labour work and she used to remain at the house for taking care of children. Her husband, the present appellant, was addicted to liquor and alcohol. She further stated that her daughter from the previous marriage was staying with her and this fact was not acceptable to the present appellant and therefore he used to have altercation with the complainant. The complainant stated that on the day of occurrence she left the house to do the labour work. When she returned and asked from the children about the eldest daughter she was informed that she had gone to market to buy a toffee. In the evening she enquired from the appellant about the whereabouts of her eldest daughter. The appellant failed to give any satisfactory reply. The neighbours on the next day i.e. 09.05.2012 informed her that on 08.05.2012 the acc
