Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Mr. Sandeep Mehta and Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ.
Dharmendra Singh @ Kaku - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1052 of 2011
Decided On : 11-03-2019
Mr. Pradeep Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. N.S. Bhati, P.P, for the Respondent
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be cogently established, must be of a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused, must form a complete chain so that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused, and must be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - RECOVERY OF MOBILE PHONE - SECTION 106 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - BURDEN OF PROOF - LAST SEEN EVIDENCE - SECTION 27 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY ACCUSED - RECOVERY OF WEAPON - SECTION 3/25-1B(IV) OF THE ARMS ACT - SENTENCE - LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITH FINE.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Rajvinder Singh. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of an eyewitness, Manu Masih, who stated that he saw the accused-appellant and the deceased go behind the truck and heard a gunshot. The accused-appellant then returned to the truck and threatened Manu Masih not to tell anyone about what he had seen. The accused-appellant was arrested three months later and the mobile phone of the deceased was recovered from him. The accused-appellant denied the charges against him and claimed that he was falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimony of Manu Masih was credible and reliable. The court also found that the recovery of the mobile phone from the accused-appellant was strong evidence of his guilt. The court rejected the accused-appellant's defense that he was falsely implicated.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimony of Manu Masih was credible and reliable. 2. Whether the recovery of the mobile phone from the accused-appellant was strong evidence of his guilt. 3. Whether the accused-appellant's defense that he was falsely implicated was credible.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the testimony of Manu Masih was credible and reliable because it was consistent with the other evidence in the case, including the medical evidence and the recovery of the mobile phone. The court also found that Manu Masih had no motive to lie. 2. The court held that the recovery of the mobile phone from the accused-appellant was strong evidence of his guilt because the mobile phone belonged to the deceased and the accused-appellant could not explain how he came to be in possession of it. 3. The court rejected the accused-appellant's defense that he was falsely implicated because there was no evidence to support this claim.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant.
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 02/2010 (67/2009) whereby the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as under :-
| Offence | Sentence |
| U/s 302 I.P.C. | Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 03 months' additional simple imprisonment |
| U/s 201 I.P.C. | 03 Years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 01 month additional simple imprisonment |
| U/s 397 I.P.C. | 07 Years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 03 months' additional simple imprisonment |
| U/s 3/25-1B (IV) | Arms Act 03 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 03 months' additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently |
Arms Act 03 years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 03 months' additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Prem Kumar (P.W. 4) submitted the written report (Ex.P/11) to the S.H.O. Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar on 22.06.2009 at 12.15 P.M. stating therein that he was resident of 1-F Chhoti. He cultivated the agricultural land bearing Kila Nos. 15 to 25 of Murabba No. 29, Chak No. 5 M.L. on contract basis, which belonged to Sumanlata D/o Ramjilal. On 22.06.2009, when he was working at the field, at around 11.30 A.M. Bhagirath son of Dungar Ram, Resident of 4- F Chhoti near Sahuwala informed him that a dead body was lying in the government water channel. He went at the spot and saw the dead body lying in the water channel near Kila No. 15 having number of injuries and swelling on the neck. Someone had murdered the unidentified person and had thrown the dead body in the water channel. The age of the deceased according to him was approximately 35 years.
3. On this report, a formal F.I.R. No. 149/2009 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. against the unknown person and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, the police after completing the formalities at the place of incident, took the body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, which was kept in the mortuary and was identified by Karnail Singh (P.W. 7). On getting information, the relatives of the deceased also reached the mortuary of the Government Hospital and identified the body and were present at the time of postmortem. The bloodstained clothes of the deceased were recovered and sent for F.S.L. examination. Thereafter, a photo copy of the bill of the mobile phone was provided by the family of the deceased to the Investigation Officer. The mobile phone was of 3110 Model of Nokia Company having IMEI No. 355728026095346. The Investigating Officer after having traced the location of the said mobile, which was being used by the accused-appellant, arrested him vide Arrest Memo dated 18.09.2009 (Ex.P/18). After arrest, the accused-appellant supplied an information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, on the basis whereof, the place of incident was verified and the recovery of mobile phone vide Ex.P/19 and the weapon of offence i.e. pistol vide Ex.P/21 was effected at his instance.
4. After conclusion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 201 & 397 of I.P.C. and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.
5. Learned trial court framed, read over and explained th
