Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Pankaj Bhandari, Birendra Kumar, JJ.
Mamta W/o Virendra Yadav - Appellants
Vs.
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 364, 363 of 2018
Decided On : 05-01-2023
Criminal Appeals - Conviction under Sections 302 & 201 of Indian Penal Code - [Ramesh Bhai & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan] - [Sections 302, 201 IPC] - The court discussed the admissibility of circumstantial evidence, the need for conclusive evidence, and the requirement to exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt. The judgment emphasized that the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of Indian Penal Code. The eye-witnesses turned hostile, and the recovery of evidence was questioned. The court analyzed the evidence, including witness testimonies, post-mortem reports, and the admissibility of circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence was not admissible, and there was no conclusive chain of evidence to establish guilt. The conviction based on the recovery of evidence was deemed erroneous, and the accused-appellants were acquitted of all charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility and sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the credibility of witness testimonies, and the establishment of a conclusive chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for circumstantial evidence to be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, and conclusive in nature. It highlighted the requirement to exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeals were allowed, and the judgment of conviction was quashed and set aside. The accused-appellants were acquitted of all charges, and those in custody were directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
JUDGMENT :
1. Accused-appellants have preferred these criminal appeals aggrieved by judgment and order dated 31.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Behror, District Alwar in Sessions Case No.39/2012 (30/2012) (State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra & Ors.), whereby, accused-appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. each one has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and for offence under Section 201 I.P.C., each one has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, both substantive sentences to run concurrently.
2. It is contended by counsel for the accused-appellants that as per First Information Report which was lodged after an inordinate delay on 03.05.2012, the incident took place on 14.04.2012. It is also contended that as per prosecution, there were two eyewitnesses namely; Kishori Lal (PW/1) and Ashok Kumar (PW/2) and they have turned hostile. It is further contended that except for the evidence of eye-witnesses, there is no evidence on record to sustain the judgment of conviction.
3. It is contended that as per the Forensic Science Laboratory Report (for short ‘FSL’) (Ex.P-42), the deceased-Virendra was intoxicated and the result of the FSL Report was found to be positive for the presence of Ethyl Alcohol. It is also contended that dead body of the deceased was recovered from an open well and as per statement of the doctor, it was not in a condition where someone could recognize the dead body. It is only on the basis of photographs that the dead body is said to have been recognized. It is further contended that as per post-mortem report which took place on 20.04.2012, the death took place about 4-5 days prior to the date of post-mortem on 15.04.2012 or 16.04.2012, whereas, as per the prosecution story, the incident took place on 14.04.2012. It is also contended that injuries which were found on the body of the deceased could have been caused due to falling in the well as has been admitted by Dr. Amit Awasthi (PW/28).
4. It is contended that F.I.R. was lodged merely with the intention to deprive the accused/appellant-Mamta of the property rights. It is also contended that the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants on the basis of circumstantial evidence when none of the circumstances point towards guilt of the appellants.
5. Counsel for the accused-appellants have placed reliance on “Ramesh Bhai & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan” (Criminal Appeal No.868-869/2004), decided by Hon’ble Apex Court on 24.04.2009.
6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State has opposed these Criminal Appeals. He has supported the judgment of the learned Trial Court and has contended that learned Trial Court has given reasons for convicting the accused-appellants. It is also contended that on 14.04.2012, deceased-Virendra went to attend the marriage of his brother-in-law at Village Khaleta, District Rewari, Haryana and did not return from there. It is further contended that on the information given by the accused, they have identified the place of occurrence and at their behest, stick and towel which were used to commit the offence were recovered.
7. We have considered the contentions and have perused the evidence on record.
8. It is an admitted case that deceased went to his in-laws’ place at Village Khaleta, District Rewari, Haryana to attend the marriage of his brother-in-law. From perusal of the statement, it is revealed that Kishori Lal (PW/1) and Ashok Kumar (PW/2) were presented as eye-witnesses who have turned hostile. Dr. Shivnarayan (PW/3) and Dr. Amit Awasthi (PW/28), Members of the Medical Board, who have conducted the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for circumstantial evidence to be fully established, conclusive, and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, excluding every ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established and be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt....
Conviction cannot be based only on the basis of recovery.
The judgment underscores the necessity of establishing a complete chain of circumstances and the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a complete chain of evidence and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused in cases relying on....
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and the burden on the accused to explain circumstances surrounding th....
The judgment establishes that a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a clear and conclusive chain of evidence, and that extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated by relia....
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
