Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 268
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta and Abhay Chaturvedi, JJ.
Chandra Shekhar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 2016
Decided On : 28-02-2020
R.S. Chundawat, Advocate, Anil Joshi, Advocate
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - 302, 457, 380 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374 (2) - Life Imprisonment - Simple imprisonment - Offence of Murder - Appeal Against Conviction - (PW.6) resident of 12-A-2, Old Housing Board, lodged a written report (Ex.P/41) with alleging inter alia that his mother-in-law and father-in-law used to reside just a little distance from house of complainant - Complainants wife (PW.7) went to meet her parents in the evening on which, she found that the main gate was lying open but the channel gate of the house was locked. She rang the door bell and called out but received no response. She tried to call her parents on their respective mobile numbers but, her fathers phone did not respond whereas her mothers phone rang once and then was not approachable - Returned home and told this to complainant - They again tried to connect both the phone numbers but could not succeed - Relatives of the complainant were staying at the complainants house because his in-laws were preparing for welcoming programme of some Seer, which was scheduled to be held at the house. Thus, complainant thought that his in-laws might be in a meeting and thus, they continued to look out for them but did not succeed. He again went back to the house and tried to peek through the window on which, he noticed that was lying down on the floor in an ensanguined condition - Police was immediately informed and came to the spot. Lock of the channel gate was broken open - Held , unconvincing and based purely on conjectures and surmises and the same cannot be considered to be trustworthy even for a moment so as to affirm the guilt of the accused-appellant - Impugned judgment, in our firm opinion, is thus based sheerly on conjectures and surmises and cannot be sustained - Trial court committed grave error while appreciating the evidence and holding the accused appellant to be guilty of the charges - Appeal deserves acceptance is hereby allowed - Impugned judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3is hereby quashed and set aside - Appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is in jail and shall be released forthwith, if not warranted in any other case - Keeping in view provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused appellant is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a special leave petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith - Ordered Accordingly
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Mehta, J. - The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 30.04.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.3, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.05/2012:
| Under Section 302 IPC | Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' additional SI. |
| Under Section 457 IPC | Three years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional SI. |
| Under Section 380 IPC | Five years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's additional SI. |
| (All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.) | |
2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and the sentences awarded to him, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C.
3. Brief facts relevant and essential for the decision of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:-
Dr. Alok Mittal (PW.6) resident of 12-A-2, Old Housing Board, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara lodged a written report (Ex.P/41) with the SHO PS City Kotwali, Bhilwara on 03.03.2011 at 11:55 pm alleging inter alia that his mother-in-law Smt. Vimla Devi and father-in-law Shri Bhagwati Prasad Aggarwal used to reside in H.No.1-A-4 just a little distance from the house of the complainant. The complainant's wife Smt. Seema (PW.7) went to meet her parents between 8:45 pm to 9:00 pm in the evening on which, she found that the main gate was lying open but the channel gate of the house was locked. She rang the door bell and called out but received no response. She tried to call her parents on their respective mobile numbers but, her father's phone did not respond whereas her mother's phone rang once and then was not approachable. Smt. Seema returned home and told this to the complainant. They again tried to connect both the phone numbers but could not succeed. The relatives of the complainant namely, Pramod Modi and Bhupendra Sanghi were staying at the complainant's house because his in-laws were preparing for the welcoming programme of some Seer, which was scheduled to be held at the house of Shri B.P. Aggarwal. Thus, the complainant thought that his in-laws might be in a meeting and thus, they continued to look out for them but did not succeed. He again went back to the house of Shri Aggarwal and tried to peek through the window on which, he noticed that Smt. Vimla Devi was lying down on the floor in an ensanguined condition. The police was immediately informed and came to the spot. Lock of the channel gate was broken open. The inner door was loosely shut and was pushed open. On going inside, Shri Bhagwati Prasad was seen lying in a blood-soaked condition near the refrigerator. The complainant expressed a suspicion that both his in-laws had been murdered. No one used to reside in the house apart from them and no one was present at that time in the house. Shri Aggarwal had gone to the bank for taking out money a couple of days earlier. A driver named Gopal Gujar had been engaged fifteen days back and he used to stay at their house from 9 O' clock in the morning till 8 O' clock in the evening. He had extensive knowledge as to where the money and the ornaments were kept and as to when and at what instances, the deceased had taken out money from the bank. When they went to the house, the car was lying at the house but the driver was missing. A maid named Chanda Sen used to come to the house of his in-laws for the purpose of sweeping and mopping in the morning and for washing utensils in the afternoon. It was thus stated by the complainant that some unknown person had committed the crime and it was prayed that proper action be taken. It was further mentioned that Smt. Seema could identify the ornaments of her mother Smt. Vimla Devi and the details of the same would be given later on.
4. On the basis of the report aforesaid, an FIR No.142/2011 (Ex.P/49)
