IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Sandeep Mehta, Farjand Ali, JJ.
Devaram S/o Sh. Sonaram - Appellant
Versus
State, Through PP - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 303/2019
Decided On : 20-05-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 313,374(2) ,437-A – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 201,302,364 – Indian Evidence Act,1872 - Section 27 – Power to examine accused – Bail to require accused to appear before next appellate court - Punishment for Murder – Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder – How much of information received from accused may be proved - Held, In case at hand, after thorough appreciation of entire prosecution case, Court found that not even a single link in chain of incriminating circumstances relied upon by prosecution in attempt to bring home charges against accused-appellant could be proved by plausible evidence - Prosecution case is comprised totally of conjectures and surmises and evidence on record cannot be considered to be of sterling worth so as to affirm the guilt of accused-appellant - Entire investigation is tainted and Investigating Officer fabricated evidence in an attempt to prove case and claim accolades for himself - Impugned judgment, in our firm opinion is based on a fanciful flight of conjectures and surmises and cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
By The Court : (Per Mehta, J.)
1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 11.10.2019 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali District Pali in Sessions Case No.47/2012:-
| Offence under Section | Sentences | Fine | Sentence in lieu of default of payment of fine |
| 302 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.15,000/- | 6 month’s Additional Imprisonment |
| 201 IPC | 3 Years’ RI. | Rs.5,000/- | 3 Months’ Additional Imprisonment |
| 364 IPC | 10 Years’ RI | Rs.10,000/- | 5 Months’ Additional imprisonment |
| All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. | |||
2. He has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. for assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and the sentences awarded to him by the trial court.
3. Briefly stated the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are noted hereinbelow:-
The deceased Rekha was married to the appellant a year and half before the incident. She was at her maternal uncle’s house from where she went missing on 14.09.2012. A Missing Person Report (Ex.P/9) was lodged by Ghisaram (PW.5), maternal uncle of the girl at the Police Station Sadri on 15.09.2012. No suspicion whatsoever was cast on anyone behind the disappearance of Rekha in this report. The dead body of Rekha was recovered on 17.09.2012 whereafter FIR (Ex.P/6) came to be lodged by Rekha’s brother Banshilal (PW.4) at the Police Station Sadri alleging inter alia that Rekha had left her maternal-uncle Ghisaram’s house on 14.09.2012 at 03:15 PM. However, she neither reached the parental home nor did she report at the matrimonial home upon which, Shri Ghisaram had lodged a missing person report on 15.09.2012. On 17.09.2012, information was received regarding dead body of a woman lying in the ‘Barwa Ki Jod’ on which, Shri Banshilal and his relatives reached the spot and identified the body to be of Rekha. She had been married to Deva Ram about a year and half ago. Right after the marriage, marital discord developed amongst Rekha and her husband as well as with the matrimonial relatives. His sister was living at the parental home for the last four months. On 14.09.2012, she had gone to her maternal-uncle Ghisaram’s home. She received a call on her mobile phone No. 9636664970 on which, she started to leave without any information as to where she was going. Noticing this, Shri Ghisaram inquired and the girl divulged that her husband had called and she was going to meet him. The informant alleged that Deva Ram had called Rekha on a false pretext and thereafter he murdered her. On the basis of this report, FIR No.150/2012 came to be registered at the Police Station Sadri for the offences under Sections 364, 302, 201 & 120B IPC and investigation was commenced. The dead body of Smt. Rekha was subjected to autopsy through a medical board constituted of Dr.Devendra Choudhary (PW.31) and Dr. Abhijeet Jain (PW.32). The autopsy was carried out and the Medical Board issued postmortem report (Ex.P/38) opining that the cause of death of Smt. Rekha was strangulation.
4. The accused appellant was arrested. Acting in furtherance of the information provided by the accused (Ex.P/48), the IO claims to have effected recovery of a steel pot. The IO further claims to have collected call details of the mobiles allegedly in use of the deceased and the accused (Ex.P/51) and thereafter charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused appellant in the Court of the concerned magistrate from where, the case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali for trial. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 364 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 36 witnesses and exhibited 62 documents to prove i
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain without reasonable doubt to establish guilt, especially in murder cases involving the last seen theory.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain of evidence, and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not merely suggest the accused may be guilty.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, a complete and conclusive chain establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; mere suspicion is insufficient.
Murder Charge - When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.