Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sandeep Mehta and Pushpendra Singh Bhati, JJ.
Kuldeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2007
Decided On : 18-03-2020
CRIMINAL APPEAL - MURDER - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - ARMS ACT - SECTION 302, 397, 201, 120B IPC AND SECTION 3/25 ARMS ACT - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - FSL REPORT - POSTMORTEM REPORT - BALLISTIC REPORT - EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT - INDEPENDENT WITNESS ACCOUNT - IDENTIFICATION PARADE - JUDICIAL OFFICER - CONSISTENCY OF EVIDENCE - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CONCLUSION OF FSL REPORT, POSTMORTEM REPORTS AND BALLISTIC REPORT - UPHOLDING OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted and sentenced for murder, robbery, and possession of illegal weapons. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of an eyewitness who saw the appellants hire a taxi from a taxi stand, the arrest of the appellants with illegal weapons and the recovery of the stolen vehicle, and the identification of the appellants by the eyewitness in a police lineup. The appellants denied the charges and claimed that the identification parade was not conducted properly.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the identification parade was conducted properly and that the eyewitness's testimony was credible. The court also found that the FSL report, postmortem report, and ballistic report supported the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and that the appellants were guilty of the crimes charged.
Issues: 1. Whether the identification parade was conducted properly. 2. Whether the eyewitness's testimony was credible. 3. Whether the FSL report, postmortem report, and ballistic report supported the prosecution's case. 4. Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the identification parade was conducted properly because it was conducted in the presence of a judicial officer and the eyewitness was able to identify the appellants from a group of 24 other people. 2. The court held that the eyewitness's testimony was credible because it was consistent with the other evidence in the case and because the eyewitness had no motive to lie. 3. The court held that the FSL report, postmortem report, and ballistic report supported the prosecution's case because they showed that the appellants had the means and opportunity to commit the crimes and that the injuries sustained by the victims were consistent with being caused by the weapons that the appellants were carrying. 4. The court held that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete because there was no evidence to suggest that anyone other than the appellants had committed the crimes.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellants' convictions and sentences.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide the judgment dated 25.07.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali Camp Sumerpur, District Pali in Sessions Case No.18/2004:
| Under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC | Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/- each. |
| Under Section 397 IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.15,000/- each. |
| Under Section 3/25 Arms Act | Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. |
| (All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently). | |
2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and the sentences awarded by the trial court, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C.
3. The facts involved in the case, as can be encompassed, are that on 30.12.2003 at about 10:30 a.m., accused Kuldeep Singh, Sukhdeep Singh and Kulvinder Singh came to Junagarh Taxi Stand, Bikaner and hired on rent a vehicle, Tata Spacio bearing Registration No.RJ 07 C 4731, owned by complainantMohan Ram, for going to Kota. At that time, complainant-Mohan Ram, his son Mota Ram and Suraj Singh (friend of Mota Ram) were standing at the Taxi Stand. Upon the aforementioned vehicle being hired on rent, Mota Ram, who himself was the driver and his friend Suraj Singh moved towards Kota alongwith three passengers i.e. the accused persons.
4. On 31.12.2003, in the morning at Thana Sojat City, a telephonic information was received that a vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 07 C 4731 has been seized alongwith illegal weapons and its occupants, but the information was silent about Mota Ram and his friend Suraj Singh. Thereafter, complainantMohan Ram immediately reached Birami in search of his son Mota Ram and his son's friend Suraj Singh, where on the way of Khimel near English Babool, he saw two blood stained dead bodies, which were of his son Mota Ram and his son's friend Suraj Singh.
5. Immediately, complainant-Mohan Ram on the same day i.e. 31.12.2003, reported the matter, from the site itself to the concerned police station. In the report, complainant-Mohan Ram narrated the whole incident and alleged that the passengers/accused persons shot dead Mota Ram and his friend Suraj Singh and looted the vehicle as well as took away their cash. Complainant-Mohan Ram also informed that he would recognize the accused persons by faces as he saw them at the time of hiring of the vehicle Tata Spacio, at Junagarh Taxi Stand, Bikaner. Complainant-Mohan Ram also narrated that he was also present at the Taxi Stand with his son Mota Ram and his son's friend Suraj Singh, and he saw the three accused persons and could exactly identify them. Complainant-Mohan Ram informed the police about the appearance and features of the accused persons.
6. On the basis of the aforementioned report, FIR No.165/03 was registered at Police Station, Sanderao for the offences under Sections 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), and accordingly, the investigation commenced.
7. During the course of investigation, Naksha Mauka, which was marked as Exhibit-P/6 was prepared in the presence of Mautbir witnesses, namely Chelaram, Mohanlal, Ganpat Singh etc., and the same was signed by the said witnesses. Blood stained soil and control soil samples were taken from the site, and were marked as Exhibit-P/7, and after signatures of Mautbir witnesses, the same were sent for FSL. From the site, a pocket diary, ExhibitP/8 was recovered, which had the name & other details of Sukhdeep Singh. During the investigation, in the presence of Mautbirs, Exhibit-P/9, regarding recovery of 3 c.m. long bullet, was prepared, and the said bullet was blood stained and soiled. The bodies were identified by complainant-Mohan Ram and the status of the belongings and injuries was also reported.
8. Prima facie, the site of murder and the examination of bodies indicated that the death of the deceased was homi
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
