Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 1733
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mr. Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Mr. Dinesh Chandra Somani, JJ.
Smt. Manisha - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 506, 530, 531 and 592 of 2017
Decided On : 18-09-2018
Mr Manoj Avasthi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mrs Sonia Shandilya, PP, for the Respondent; Mr Mahendra Goyal, Advocate, for the Complainant
Extrajudicial confessions, statements of interested witnesses, and the recovery of blood-stained evidence can be used to establish a chain of circumstances sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in a criminal case.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - SECTION 120B IPC - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 27 - EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION - RECOVERY OF BLOOD-STAINED WEAPONS AND CLOTHES - INTERESTED WITNESSES - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - SENTENCING.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of Rakesh, a police officer, who was found dead on the roadside with head and other body injuries. An FIR was registered, and the investigation led to the arrest of several accused appellants, including his wife, Smt Manisha, and others. The prosecution alleged that the murder was a result of illicit relations between Smt Manisha and another accused, Anil Kumar, and that the accused conspired to kill Rakesh.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution, including extrajudicial confessions by the accused, statements of witnesses who saw the accused together shortly before the murder, and the recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothes from the accused. The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the accused of murder under Section 302 IPC and criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the extrajudicial confessions of the accused were admissible and reliable. 2. Whether the statements of interested witnesses could be relied upon. 3. Whether the recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothes from the accused was sufficient to connect them to the crime. 4. Whether the prosecution had established a chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the extrajudicial confessions of the accused were admissible and reliable, as they were made before multiple witnesses and were corroborated by other evidence. 2. The court found that the statements of interested witnesses could be relied upon, as they were corroborated by other evidence and there was no reason to believe that they were making false statements. 3. The court held that the recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothes from the accused was sufficient to connect them to the crime, as they failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the presence of the blood stains. 4. The court found that the prosecution had established a chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused, including the extrajudicial confessions, the statements of witnesses, and the recovery of blood-stained evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the accused appellants and upheld their convictions for murder under Section 302 IPC and criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. The court also accepted the appeal filed by the State Government and modified the sentence for the offence under Section 120B IPC to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-.
JUDGMENT
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - These criminal appeals have been filed against the order dated 17.1.2017 passed by Additional Session Judge, Neemkathana, Sikar in Sessions Case No.40/2013, whereby, all the accused appellants have been convicted for offence under section 302 and 120B IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to pay fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under section 302 IPC and five years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to pay fine, to further undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under section 120B IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
Facts Of The Case
2. An FIR was registered with the Police Station - Sadar, Neemkathana, Sikar for offence under section 302 and 120B IPC. The report for it was made by complainant Jaimal Rawat (PW-7) vide Ex.P.13. It was stated that while he was sleeping at his residence on 20.6.2013, at around 5.00 AM, Om Prakash Gurjar informed him that Rakesh is lying dead on the road side. He along with Hoshiar went on the spot and found that deceased Rakesh, employed in Police Department, was lying dead. He was having head injury and injuries on other parts of the body.
3. On the information aforesaid, FIR No.216/2013 was registered for offence under section 302 IPC. After investigation, police filed charge sheet for offence under sections 302 and 120B IPC against all the accused appellants. After framing of charges for the offence under sections 302 and 120B IPC, accused appellants did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution produced 29 witnesses and exhibited 54 documents in evidence, whereas, statements of accused appellants were recorded under section 313 CrPC, 1973. In defence, accused appellant Smt Manisha recorded her statement as DW-1 and exhibited police statements of Chhoturam, Jaimal, Hoshiar Singh, Maya Devi, Ashok Kumar, Sunahari, Data Ram, Nirmala Devi and Naresh Kumar as Ex.D-1 to D-9 respectively.
5. Learned trial court marshalled the evidence and came to the conclusion that prosecution could prove its case beyond doubt against the accused appellants thus they were convicted and sentenced for offence under section 302 and 120B IPC. While life imprisonment has been given for offence under section 302 IPC, five years simple imprisonment has been awarded to the accused appellants for offence under section 120B IPC.
6. Against the sentence for offence under section 120B IPC, an appeal has been preferred by the State Government mainly on the ground that once punishment for offence under section 302 IPC is for life, punishment lesser than that could not have been awarded for offence under section 120B IPC. In view of the above, appeal of the State Government has also been heard along with the appeals preferred by the accused appellants.
Arguments On Behalf Of The Accused Appellants
7. Learned counsel submits that accused appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. It is coming out from the fact that FIR was lodged without naming anyone. The names of the accused appellants were given with an after thought at the time of a detailed report in the evening of the day of occurrence. The disclosure of the names of the accused later on was based on presumption, otherwise, their names would have been given in the FIR itself.
8. It is further stated that conviction of the accused appellants is based on the statement of the interested witnesses before whom accused appellants said to have made extra judicial confession. The trial court failed to make scrutiny of interested witnesses. It has even failed to consider as to whether accused were in the state of mind to make a confessional statement before others. In view of the above, trial court should not have believed the testimony of the witnesses for extra judicial confession.
9. In the similar manner, trial court could not have relied on the recovery of motorcycle and articles, whi
