Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 1677
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sabina and Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.
Mohan Lal S/o Shri Panchu Ram And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 792 of 2015 Connected with D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 837 of 2015 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 877 of 2015
Decided On : 15-05-2019
Mr. V.R. Bajwa with Mr. Amar Kumar, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Javed Choudhary, Add. Govt. Advocate, for the Respondent; Mr. Madhav Mitra with Mr. Veerendra Singh, Advocates, for the Complainant
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CHAIN OF EVENTS - MOTIVE - BENEFIT OF DOUBT: 1. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of events that is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and negates the possibility of someone else committing the crime. 2. The motive for the crime is a significant factor in circumstantial evidence cases, and its absence or introduction at a later stage can cast doubt on the prosecution's story. 3. When the prosecution story is doubtful, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and must be acquitted.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of murdering Sanwarmal based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged that appellant Santosh, having an illicit relationship with appellant Mohanlal, hired appellants Dharmendra and Raju @ Rajendra to kill Sanwarmal. The prosecution presented evidence of call records, foot moulds, recovery of currency notes, and a scarf used for strangulation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events leading to the guilt of the appellants. The call records were inadmissible due to the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The foot moulds were lifted three days after the incident, raising doubts about their authenticity. The recovery of currency notes from the appellants was not supported by evidence of appellant Santosh having the money to pay for a contract killing. The scarf used for strangulation did not match the marks on the deceased's neck. The motive attributed to appellants Mohanlal and Santosh was introduced at a later stage and was not mentioned in the FIR.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of events leading to the guilt of the appellants? 2. Whether the motive attributed to appellants Mohanlal and Santosh was valid and supported by evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of events that is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and negates the possibility of someone else committing the crime. 2. The motive for the crime is a significant factor in circumstantial evidence cases, and its absence or introduction at a later stage can cast doubt on the prosecution's story.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, set aside the trial court's judgment, and acquitted the appellants of the charges against them.
JUDGMENT
Sabina, J. - Vide this order above mentioned three appeals would be disposed of as they have arisen out of the same judgment/order dated 18.08.2015.
2. Vide Exhibit P-1, complainant Ramnarayan moved a complaint to the Station House Officer, Govindgarh for registration of case against the accused. It was the case of the complainant that his brother Sanwarmal had gone to the house of Mukesh Manawat on 02.12.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. and had stayed there up to 8.30 p.m. Thereafter, at about 9.30 p.m., his brother had gone with Mohan Lal. When his brother did not return home, he tried to contact him on his mobile-phone, but remained unsuccessful. During the night, at about 3.30 a.m., Mukesh Manawat and Ankit came to his residence and told him that dead body of Sanwarmal was lying near Badhala College, Govindgarh. On receipt of the information, he reached the spot and found that his brother had suffered injuries with sharp edged weapon and had been strangulated with the help of a rope. It had been projected that it was a case of an accident.
3. On the basis of the said complaint, formal FIR No.230 dated 03.12.2011 was registered at police station Govindgarh, District Jaipur Rural under Section 302, 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.).
4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against accused Mohanlal, Santosh, Raju @ Rajendra and Dharmendra.
5. Charges were framed against the accused under Section 302/34, 201 and 120B I.P.C. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined thirty two witnesses. After close of prosecution evidence, accused when examined under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case.
7. Accused examined DW-1 Panchuram in their defence.
8. Trial court vide judgment/order dated 18.08.2015, convicted accused Mohanlal, Dharmendra and Raju @ Rajendra under Section 302/120B and 201 I.P.C., whereas, accused Santosh was convicted qua offence punishable under Section 302/120B I.P.C. Accused were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302/120B I.P.C. and were imposed a fine of Rupees two thousand each and in default of payment of fine, they were further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Accused Mohanlal, Raju @ Rajendra and Dharmendra were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 201 I.P.C. and were imposed fine to the tune of Rupees five hundred each and in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. Hence, the present appeals by the convicts.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution had failed to complete the chain of events leading to the guilt of the appellants. As per the FIR and the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 appellants were not attributed any motive to have committed the crime-in-question. There was no evidence to the effect that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants. Lot of padding had been done by the prosecution to strengthen its case. The circumstance of lifting of foot moulds from the spot had been falsely incorporated by the prosecution to strengthen its case. As per PW-15 Indraj Singh, the unpaved path was made up of sand which could shift its place. Hence, it could not be said that the foot moulds could have been lifted from the spot after three days of the occurrence, i.e., on 05.12.2011. Foot moulds were not lifted in the presence of the Magistrate. The call records produced on record were not admissible in evidence as there was no certificate obtained under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Circumstance to show that the murder had been committed at one place
