Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, G.R. Moolchandani, JJ.
Papu @ Rajveer - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 1985
Decided On : 18-07-2017
CRIMINAL - EVIDENCE - FOOT MOULDS AND FINGER PRINTS - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - PROCEDURE - NECESSITY OF TAKING FOOT MOULDS AND FINGER PRINTS BEFORE OR UNDER THE ORDER OF A MAGISTRATE - NON-COMPLIANCE - EVIDENCE UNRELIABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution relied on the evidence of recovery of weapon, blood-stained clothes from the person of the accused and also on the evidence of lifting of finger prints and foot moulds from the spot. The accused was convicted by the trial court for the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the evidence of finger prints and foot moulds was not reliable as they were not taken and prepared in the presence of a Magistrate. The court also held that the circumstance of tallying of finger prints and foot moulds could not be relied against the accused.
Issues: Whether the evidence of finger prints and foot moulds was reliable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of a Division Bench of the same court in Vikram @ Vikky vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein it was held that the evidence of foot moulds and finger prints cannot be relied upon against the accused if they were not taken and prepared in the presence of a Magistrate. The court also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Aman and another vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein it was held that it is eminently desirable that fingerprints are taken before or under the order of a Magistrate to avoid any suspicion regarding the genuineness of the fingerprint so taken or resort to any subterfuge.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused, and acquitted him of the charge.
JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) - On 10.3.1982 at 2.00 AM, Khillu was murdered in his residential house in Village Ujoli. His neck was severed by an incised weapon called "Fawali". Case of the prosecution is that Risal (PW.1) wife of the deceased in night at 2.00 AM was entering in her house when at that nick of the moment she saw four persons coming out of the house and one of them, present appellant Pappu @ Rajveer, was armed with a "Fawali". She thereafter entered into her house, saw the dead body of her husband and became unconscious.
2. To similar effect is the statement of Sheochand (PW.2), uncle (Chacha) of deceased Khillu.
3. It is further case of the prosecution that Ram Kanwar (PW.9) on hearing noise entered the house, met Risal (PW.1), wife of the deceased, and Sheochand (PW.2), uncle of the deceased, and thereafter went to lodge the report (Ex.P.4) to the police. The said report (Ex.P.4) was lodged at Police Station Kotkasim, District Alwar on 10.3.1982 at 3.15 AM. The report (Ex.P.4) is silent regarding the names of the assailants.
4. Prosecution besides above two witnesses Risal (PW.1) and Sheochand (PW.2), relied upon evidence of recovery of weapon, blood stained clothes from the person of present appellant Pappu @ Rajveer. It is further case of the prosecution that finger prints on the articles at the spot and foot moulds were lifted from the spot.
5. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar, out of four assailants named, vide impugned judgment dated 1.3.1985 acquitted Ramsharan, Sardar Singh and Jailal of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC by extending them benefit of doubt. However, vide impugned judgment dated 1.3.1985 the said court convicted Pappu @ Rajveer substantively for offence under Section 302 IPC and vide a separate order of even date sentenced him to life imprisonment.
6. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, Pappu @ Rajveer has preferred instant D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 184/85.
7. State of Rajasthan has opted not to assail the acquittal of Ramsharan, Sardar Singh and Jailal.
8. We have heard Shri Mohit Balwada, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri Aladeen Khan, learned Public Prosecutor.
9. As stated earlier, criminal proceedings in the present case were set into motion on the basis of report (Ex.P.4) lodged at the instance of Ram Kanwar (PW.9). The report (Ex.P.4) lodged by Ram Kanwar (PW.9) when translated into English, reads as under:-
"Tonight in our village Ujoli on Holi festival, drum (Nagara) was playing. I was watching Tamasha. In the night at 2.00 AM we heard noises of weeping and crying coming from the house of Shiv Chand. Somebody in the crowed said that Khillu has been murdered. I and people watching Tamasha went into the house of Shiv Chand. We saw there Shiv Chand and wife of Khillu were weeping and became unconscious. Khillu was lying dead. His neck was severed. It is not known who caused murder. I have come to lodge the report. Action be taken."
10. Now, we shall deal with the evidence of the persons who stated that they had seen accused coming out of the house.
11. Risal (PW.1) wife of the deceased Khillu stated that she was married two years before the occurrence, with Khillu. On the date of occurrence, Holi was being celebrated. The witness stated that she had gone to the house of Ramchandra Nambardar to whom grandson was born and her husband was sleeping alone in the house. She had gone at 8.00-9.00 PM and had returned around 12.00-12.30 AM. We reproduce following lines from examination-in-chief of the witness:-
12. Risal (PW.1) further stated that her daughter Saroj is aged 2 1 /2 - 3 years. The witness stated that when she returned to her house she saw that Pappu, Sardara, Ramsharan and Jailal were coming out of the door of her house. Jailal, Sardara and Ramsharan were empty handed, Pappu was armed with a Fawali. Thereafter when she went inside, she saw that her husband was lying dead. Her neck was severed.
13
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
