Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 1737
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mr. Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Mr. Dinesh Chandra Somani, JJ.
Ram Lal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2015
Decided On : 23-08-2018
Sudhir Jain with Mr. H.V. Nandwana, Advocates, for the Appellant; Aladeen Khan - PP, for the Respondent
In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond doubt with a chain of evidence connecting the accused to the crime.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - SC/ST ACT - CONVICTION - EVIDENCE - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - MOTIVE - RECOVERY OF KEY AND TABLETS - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - SENTENCING - CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES - REMISSION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of triple murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for each offense under Sections 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC&ST Act, with sentences to run consecutively without remission. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including last seen evidence, motive, recovery of key and tablets, identification parade, and recovery of the deceased's cell phone.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond doubt with a chain of evidence connecting the appellant to the crime. The court also found that the appellant had the intention and motive to commit the murders, as he was having an affair with the deceased and she was demanding money from him.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond doubt with a chain of evidence connecting the appellant to the crime. 2. Whether the appellant had the intention and motive to commit the murders. 3. Whether the sentences should run consecutively or concurrently. 4. Whether the appellant should be granted remission.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond doubt with a chain of evidence connecting the appellant to the crime. The court relied on the evidence of last seen witnesses, the recovery of key and tablets, the identification parade, and the recovery of the deceased's cell phone. 2. The court also found that the appellant had the intention and motive to commit the murders, as he was having an affair with the deceased and she was demanding money from him. 3. The court held that the sentences should run consecutively, as the offenses were committed separately. 4. The court modified the order of the trial court and ordered to extend the benefit of remission to the appellant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The court also modified the order of the trial court and ordered to extend the benefit of remission to the appellant.
JUDGMENT
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - It is a case of triple murder. The accused-appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 302, 364 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989") vide order dated 10th March, 2015. He has been sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo one month simple imprisonment for offence under Section 364 IPC. He has further been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for each offences under Sections 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC&ST Act. Learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Bundi (Raj.) has ordered to run the sentences consecutively without remission.
2. It is a case where a First Information Report was lodged in Police Station Kapren on 13th August, 2011 at 9.00 AM for offence under Section 302 IPC. After investigation, the Police filed charge sheet for offences under Sections 363, 364 and 302 IPC apart from Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989. The trial court, however, framed charges for offences under Sections 302 and 364 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989.
3. In the FIR lodged by PW1-Pawan Kumar Rathore, it was stated that he resides at Talai Ki Pal, Shivnagar, Kapren. His second house is situated at Kabeera Ki Badi, Kapren in which one room has been occupied by Shambhoo Meena along with his family and another by accused-Ramdayal @ Ram Lal along with his wife-Kailash Devi, son-Rakesh at the age of 11 years and daughter-Anita at the age of 12 years, for last two months. In the neighbouring room, one Raghuveer Malav resides along with his family. On 13th August, 2011, Raghuveer Malav informed him on telephone that Kailashi Bai @ Sanju Bai is lying on the cot, whereas, his son-Rakesh is lying on the floor. The door of the room is locked from outside. He immediately went to the house and saw from the window that Kailashi Bai @ Sanju Bai was lying on the cot and his son-Rakesh on the floor. When they were called, no response was given. A loop of saree was tied around the neck of Rakesh. The Police was informed about it.
4. Another tenant-Shambhudayal's wife informed that accused-Ram Dayal was available till evening of 12th August, 2011 with deceased but thereafter went out after putting a lock on the door.
5. The Police, thereupon, found dead body of another deceased-Anita in drain near Petrol Pump, Mega Highway, Kasba Kapren.
6. The Police caused investigation and found case against the accused-appellant, thus filed charge sheet. The trial court framed the charges and when it was not accepted, commenced the trial. The prosecution produced 35 witnesses apart from 65 documents to prove their case. The accused produced 2 witnesses in defence apart from 16 documents. His statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973
7. Learned counsel submits that no one had seen the occurrence yet appellant has been convicted without chain of evidence to connect the accused-appellant with the crime.
8. It is stated that appellant was not residing with the deceased, rather, he is having his own house and residing with his wife. His implication in the case is in ignorance of the aforesaid. It is further stated that deceased was not maintaining good character. Many persons used to visit her. The prosecution has not made investigation on the aforesaid but implicated the appellant without connecting evidence.
9. Learned counsel further stated that no motive could be shown by the prosecution to cause offence. In absence of it, the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be said to be justified.
10. It is lastly stated that the trial court has grossly erred in relying on the statements of PW25-Ashok Teli and PW26-Bhojraj Gujar. They are witnesses of last seen of accused with deceased-Ani
