Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta and Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ.
Shiva - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2018
Decided On : 11-01-2019
Mr. J.V.S. Deora, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary, Advocate, for the Respondent
In a case relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove all necessary circumstances forming a complete chain pointing to the accused's guilt, excluding any reasonable likelihood of innocence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - BENEFIT OF DOUBT TO ACCUSED:
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for assaulting his wife, Parvati, and causing her death. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's history of altercations with his wife, the recovery of a bamboo stick near the scene of the crime, and the postmortem report showing subdural haematoma as the cause of death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the murder. The independent witnesses had been declared hostile and there was no direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The court also noted that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by a fall or excessive alcohol consumption, rather than an assault.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the murder. 2. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had committed the murder. The circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt, as there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime and the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by a fall or excessive alcohol consumption.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of the murder charge.
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J - The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order of conviction dated 31/01/2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 33/2016 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months additional rigorous imprisonment.
2. The brief facts in the present case are that a written report (Ex.P.2) was filed by PW.1 Khatu stating therein that wife of his brother Shiva was a habitual drinker and used to consume liquor daily. On 09/01/2016, his brother had a fight with his wife Parvati. Both of them were at their house and he was in Udaipur. He was informed on telephone that Parvati had passed away. On getting this information when he reached home, he saw Parvati lying dead and his brother informed that she consumed liquor day before yesterday and assaulted him and, therefore, they had a fight. Yesterday at around 6 p.m., Parvati died. There was an injury on the backside of right ear of the deceased. The relatives were informed.
3. On this information, a formal F.I.R. No. 08/2016 was registered at Police Station Jhadol, Udaipur for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.
4. After conclusion of investigation, the police filed charge- sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.
5. Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. to the accused appellant who pleaded not guilty and sought trial.
6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/20 documents were exhibited.
7. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in the present case. At the time of incident, he had gone to Udaipur for doing his job of labour.
8. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments from both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as above vide judgment dated 31/01/2018. Hence this appeal.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that there was no evidence in the present case and all the independent witnesses were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution story. The recovery of bamboo stick was effected from an open place and the appellant could not be connected with the same. Learned trial Court thus erred in convicting the appellant vide judgment dated 31/01/2018. He, therefore, prays that the appeal of the appellant may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted of the charge levelled against him by setting aside the judgment dated 31/01/2018.
11. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has submitted that on the strength of the prosecution witnesses, it was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant assaulted his wife Parvati and inflicted fatal injuries. The recovery of bamboo stick on the information given by the accused appellant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the statement of PW.12 Dr. Vishnu Pujari and the postmortem report (Ex.P.16) shows that the death of Parvati was due to subdural haematoma pressing brain tissues. The said injury was caused by none other than the appellant. Learned trial Court rightly analyzed the entire evidence on record and after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case rightly convicted the appellant for the offence alleged vide judgment dated 31/01/2018. He, therefore, prays that no interference is warranted in the present case.
12. We have heard the submissions made at the bar and closely scanned the recor
