Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1485
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sabina and Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.
Kalu @ Hanuman - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 2013
Decided On : 26-09-2019
G.L. Sharma, Advocate, Javed Choudhary, Advocate
In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that leads to the conclusion that the accused was the only person who could have committed the offence and none else, and that such chain of evidence must rule out every other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 364, 302 IPC - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - MISSING LINKS - INNOCENCE OF ACCUSED NOT RULED OUT - CONVICTION QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
Accused-appellant was convicted by the trial court for the offences of kidnapping (Section 364 IPC) and murder (Section 302 IPC) based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged that the accused had kidnapped and murdered the deceased, Kailash, due to a dispute over money.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the chain of circumstances sought to be proved against the accused had several missing links and failed to establish his guilt and negate his innocence. The court noted that there were major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, and that the theory of last seen was not established.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence. 2. Whether the chain of circumstances was complete and ruled out every other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, there must be a complete chain of evidence, which should lead to the conclusion that the accused was the only person who could have committed the offence and none else. Each of the circumstances that is proved against the accused should form a chain so complete so as to rule out every other hypothesis, which may be compatible with the innocence of the accused. The court found that the prosecution had failed to establish such a complete chain of evidence, and therefore, the conviction of the accused could not be sustained.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused-appellant, quashed and set aside the conviction ordered by the trial court, and acquitted the accused of the charges framed against him.
JUDGMENT
Goverdhan Bardhar, J. - Challenge in the instant criminal appeal has been made by the appellant to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21.01.2013 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa [for short 'the learned trial Court'] in Sessions Case No.09/2006, State of Rajasthan vs. Kalu @ Hanuman & Anr., whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accusedappellant as under:-
U/s.364 IPC:
Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.
U/s.302 IPC:
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that complainant Guddi (PW1) submitted a complaint under section 190 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sikrai against the appellant and another co-accused Kripal etc. with the averments that Kailash- husband of complainant worked with the accused-appellant and on account of some personal expenses he gave Rs.47,000/- to Kailash. On demand Kailash did not pay the said amount for which some dispute arose between them. On 12.07.2005 at about 8:00 p.m., Kailash went to the house of the accusedappellant for settlement of amount and when he did not return, the complainant obtained information about Kailash and came to know that one person was lying in the well and when went to the well, she came to know that the person was Kailash. The aforesaid complaint was sent under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Bandikui for registration of the FIR. Afterwards, an FIR No.470/2005 was registered at Police Station Bandikui for the offence under section 302, 201 and 120B IPC. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against accused Kaluram and a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against accused Kripal Singh for the offences under sections 364, 302, 201 and 120B IPC.
3. Learned trial court framed charges against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 364 and 302 IPC. The accused appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of eleven witnesses and ten documents were got exhibited. Thereafter, the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence the accused appellant did not examine any witness but ten documents were got exhibited. The appellant aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court dated 21.01.2013 has preferred this criminal appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the accused appellant has argued that there are major contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, the incident took place on 12.7.2005 for which the FIR was lodged by the complainant on 26.8.2005. The complainant failed to give plausible and reasonable explanation for lodging the FIR after with an inordinate delay. There is no eye-witness of the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. In the present case the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the family members of the deceased in the presence of police personnel, SDM and Tehsildar concerned. Learned counsel further argued that the deceased Kailash was habitual of consuming liquor.
5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the impugned judgment calls for no interference. The learned Public Prosecutor has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned judgment and examined the record.
7. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence.
8. Complainant (PW1) in addition to the averments made in the
