Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sabina, Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.
Shramraj and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 1397 and 1334 of 2016
Decided On : 02-08-2019
For the Appellant : Sunil Tyagi and Vijay Choudhary on behalf of N.C. Choudhary
For the Respondents: Javed Choudhary
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a motive for the accused to commit the crime, evidence that the accused was last seen with the deceased before the crime, and the cause of death of the deceased.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302, 302/34, 201 IPC - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CONVICTION BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - REQUIREMENT OF ESTABLISHING MOTIVE, LAST SEEN TOGETHER, AND CAUSE OF DEATH - FAILURE OF PROSECUTION TO PROVE MOTIVE, LAST SEEN TOGETHER, AND CAUSE OF DEATH - ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted of murder under Sections 302, 302/34, and 201 IPC based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had killed the deceased and concealed his body in a well. The appellants denied the charges and claimed they were falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish a motive for the appellants to commit the murder, that there was no evidence that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants before the crime, and that the cause of death of the deceased was not established.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established a motive for the appellants to commit the murder? 2. Whether there was evidence that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants before the crime? 3. Whether the cause of death of the deceased was established?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a motive for the appellants to commit the murder. The court noted that the deceased was a convict who had jumped parole and was moving about under a false name. 2. The court held that there was no evidence that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants before the crime. The court noted that the prosecution had failed to produce any witnesses who had seen the deceased with the appellants before his death. 3. The court held that the cause of death of the deceased was not established. The court noted that the postmortem report did not indicate any external injuries on the deceased and that the cause of death was undetermined.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellants of the charges framed against them. The court set aside the impugned judgment/order of the trial court and directed the appellants to be set at liberty.
JUDGMENT :
1. Vide this order above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of.
2. Appellants had faced trial along with their co-accused Sheojilal in FIR No. 180 dated 09.07.2012 registered at police Station Itawa, District Kota Rural under Section 302/201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC'). FIR was lodged at the instance of Prabhulal. Complainant had lodged the FIR on account of recovery of an unknown dead body in his Well on 09.07.2012 at about 7.00 a.m.
3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants and their co-accused Sheojilal.
4. Charges were framed against the appellants under Section 302, 302/34 and 201 I.P.C. Appellants did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 22 witnesses, during trial. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. Appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.
6. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 17.09.2016 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. So far as co-accused Sheojilal is concerned, he was acquitted of the charges framed against him. Hence, the present appeals by the appellants.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. Appellants had been falsely involved in this case. Prosecution had failed to establish any motive during trial with the appellants to have committed the murder of Manjeet Singh. Recovery of driving licence of deceased Manjeet Singh has been falsely foisted on appellant Shramraj. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.K. Raveendran Versus State of Kerala, 2000 CRI. L.J. 497, wherein it was held as under:-
"The Doctor PW 19, who conducted the autopsy, while issuing the post-mortem certificate Exh. P10, categorically stated that the exact cause of death cannot be ascribed and reserved his opinion, pending the result of chemical analysis. On getting the report of the Assistant Chemical Examiner Exh. P11, the said doctor PW 19 gave a final report as per Exh. P12, which indicated that the deceased sustained head injury, which if ante-mortem, could result in death and the injury, if ante-mortem, could be caused by hitting with stones like M.Os. 11 or 12. The said report further revealed that nobody could say that there was violence on the neck of the deceased or not. When the doctor itself has not been able to give a definite opinion as to the injuries found on the dead body, whether could be ante-mortem or post-mortem and the dead body itself was found on 30th of March, 1988 and Yeshoda alleged to have been seen in the company of accused last on 3.3.88, it is difficult for us to sustain the conclusion of the High Court that the death of Yeshoda can only be homicidal."
8. Learned State counsel, has opposed the appeals.
9. Present case relates to murder of Manjeet Singh. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brajendrasingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1552, as under:-
"There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to t
