Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 2891
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta and Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ.
Iqbal Singh - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 2011
Decided On : 07-02-2019
J.S. Khichi, Adv., C.S. Ojha, Adv.
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that excludes every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - RECOVERY OF BLOOD-STAINED IRON PIPE - FSL REPORT - EYE-WITNESSES - HOSTILE WITNESSES - DISCREPANCY IN SAMPLES - MOTIVE - BURDEN OF PROOF - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED - SECTION 27 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - DISCOVERY OF MATERIAL OBJECT - LINK BETWEEN DISCOVERY AND OFFENCE - PROOF OF GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for fatally assaulting the deceased with an iron pipe. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses, recovery of the murder weapon and bloodstained clothes, and a forensic science laboratory (FSL) report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was unreliable and that the recovery of the murder weapon and bloodstained clothes was not properly corroborated. The court also noted a discrepancy in the FSL report, which raised doubts about the reliability of the evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the testimony of the eyewitnesses was reliable. 2. Whether the recovery of the murder weapon and bloodstained clothes was properly corroborated. 3. Whether the FSL report was reliable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was unreliable because they failed to provide a clear and consistent account of the incident and because their conduct at the scene of the crime was unnatural. 2. The court held that the recovery of the murder weapon and bloodstained clothes was not properly corroborated because the recovery witnesses were declared hostile and because there was a discrepancy in the FSL report. 3. The court held that the FSL report was unreliable because it contained a discrepancy that raised doubts about the reliability of the evidence.
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 03.05.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.01/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months simple imprisonment.
2. Brief facts necessary to be noted for disposal of the appeal are that on 16.10.2010 Kuldeep Singh (PW1) who is son of deceased Kaka Singh lodged an oral complaint stating therein that on 16.10.2010 at around 12'O clock in the afternoon, Iqbal Singh called his father on his mobile number and asked him to come to Malarampura on the pretext of some urgent work. His father went there. At that time, his sister Paramjeet Kaur and brother-in-law Avtar Singh were also present at their house. At around 3:00 pm, he and his brother- in- law went to meet a mechanic at Malarampura. While they were standing at the shop of the mechanic, at around 3:30 pm some persons told them that Kaka Singh of Bajitpura was being assaulted by accused appellant Iqbal Singh near Dera of Baba Balaknath. They immediately rushed to the spot. On reaching the place of the incident, they saw that Iqbal Singh was inflicting injuries with an iron pipe upon his father who was lying on the floor. The accused-appellant was shouting that since he got arrested by the Punjab Police in an opium case at the instance of the Kaka Singh, therefore, he would not spare him. When he raised hue and cry, the accused appellant fled away from the place of the incident. Jahaj Singh @ Amar Singh and other persons came to the spot. The police also reached the place of the incident. He was served a glass of water and soon after, he was taken to the Hospital in a Jeep where the doctors declared him dead. While Kaka Singh was taken to the Hospital in the jeep, Kaka Singh told that the accused appellant was on enmical terms with him as he had got the accused appellant arrested by the Punjab Police at his instance in an opium case.
3. On this complaint, a formal F.I.R. No.523/2010 was registered at Police Station Sangaria District Hanumangarh for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused-appellant. After conclusion of investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the accused-appellant charging him for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.
4. Learned trial court framed, read over and explained the charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC to the accused appellant who pleaded not guilty and sought trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/54 documents were exhibited. 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 expressed denial and stated that he was falsely implicated and he was innocent.
5. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments of both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 03.05.2011. Hence this appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that though there are six witnesses to the incident but out of the six eye witnesses, PW1 Kuldeep Singh and PW9 Avtar Singh were disbelieved by the learned trial court. As far as PW2 Leela Singh, PW3 Angrej Singh, PW6 Harmel Singh and PW10 Amar Singh are concerned, they were declared hostile. Therefore, the depositions made by PW1 Kuldeep Singh and PW9 Avtar Singh are unreliable and worthless. He further submits that there is disparity in the samples which were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Ex.P/42 for examination. The packet containing
