Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 2247
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mr. Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Mr. Dinesh Chandra Somani, JJ.
Ram Manohar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2014
Decided On : 14-08-2018
Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, for the Appellants; Mrs. Soniya Shandilya, PP, for the Respondents; Mr. Sanjay Sharma, for the Complainant
In a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove a chain of circumstances that connect the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER AND DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE - SECTIONS 302 AND 201 IPC - CONVICTION UPHELD - EVIDENCE OF LAST SEEN, RECOVERY OF SKELETON, AND MOTIVE ESTABLISHED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder (Section 302 IPC) and destruction of evidence (Section 201 IPC) for killing his wife, Jyoti. The prosecution's case was that the appellant had a strained relationship with his wife and had harassed her for dowry. On the day of the incident, the appellant and Jyoti had a quarrel, and she left the house. The appellant later took her on his motorcycle, and they were never seen together again. Jyoti's skeleton was found a few days later at the instance of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence showed that the appellant and Jyoti had a strained relationship, and that he had harassed her for dowry. The court also found that the appellant was the last person seen with Jyoti before she disappeared, and that he had not been able to account for his whereabouts in the days following her disappearance. The court also found that the appellant had identified the place where Jyoti's skeleton was found, which was a circumstance that connected him to the crime.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the evidence of last seen, recovery of skeleton, and motive was sufficient to convict the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence showed that the appellant and Jyoti had a strained relationship, and that he had harassed her for dowry. The court also found that the appellant was the last person seen with Jyoti before she disappeared, and that he had not been able to account for his whereabouts in the days following her disappearance. The court also found that the appellant had identified the place where Jyoti's skeleton was found, which was a circumstance that connected him to the crime.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction.
JUDGMENT
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - This criminal appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.1.2014, passed by the Additional District Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan in Sessions Case No.59/2011, convicting the accused-appellant for offence under sections 302 and 201 IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo three months' imprisonment for offence under section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. An FIR was lodged on 30.5.2011 by one Dalchand son of Sualal stating that his daughter Jyoti was married to accused appellant- Ram Manohar eight years back. She was harassed for dowry and attempts were made to kill her. He paid Rs.15,000/- to her husband and father-in-law to satisfy them yet his daughter was tortured by them. On 22.5.2011, he received a telephone call from Jyoti alleging beating and pouring kerosene by her husband. After some time, he received another telephone call from the landlady corroborating the allegations made by his daughter-Jyoti. Thereafter, Jyoti and her husband went out on the motorcycle. Her skeleton was found on 30.5.2011 at the instance of the accused appellant.
3. After investigation, challan was filed by the police against the accused appellant for offence under sections 302 and 201 IPC. After framing of charges for the said offence, prosecution produced 15 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents in the trial. The accused appellant produced one witness in defence apart from 8 documents.
4. The allegation for commission of offence under section 302 and 201 IPC was found proved by the trial court thus appellant was convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences.
5. Learned counsel for accused appellant submits that no evidence exist to connect the appellant with the offence under sections 302 and 201 IPC. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstances does not exist to convict the appellant for the offence. The prosecution failed to prove its case. The evidence produced by it is having contradictions thus should not have been relied by the trial court. In fact, the allegations against the appellant could not be proved beyond doubt yet trial court convicted the appellant.
6. The statement of PW-l-Durga Singh has been referred wherein he has shown recovery of the skeleton of deceased-Jyoti before lodging FIR. In view of the above, recovery of skeleton of deceased at the instance of appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act became false, rather, prosecution has created evidence to connect the appellant with the crime.
7. In the same manner, reference of statement of PW-9- Smt Seema Sharma and pW-10-Mukesh Kumar Sharma has been given to show self contradiction therein. In the cross examination, they admitted that deceased Jyoti left the house on 22.5.2011 at her own yet trial court took it to be a case of last seen evidence with the appellant. The case of last seen was not made out but, ignoring the cross examination of PW-9 and PW-10, learned trial court accepted the story of the prosecution.
8. It is also stated that even if the statement of PW-2- Dalchand and PW-7-Vidya Devi, father and mother of the deceased-Jyoti are taken into consideration, they have admitted that deceased was with them and left the house almost seven days prior to recovery of skeleton of the deceased. The date of it comes to be 23.5.2011. In view of the above, deceased was with them and not with the appellant on 22.5.2011. In view of the above also, a case of last seen is not made out to connect the appellant with the crime. The statement of PW-2 and PW-7 have been ignored by the trial court. The deceased was residing with her parents till last and left the house thereupon at her own. In view of th
