HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Sandeep Mehta, Sameer Jain, JJ.
Sanwra & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1222/2015 Connected With Criminal Appeal No. 1165/2015
Decided On : 27-01-2022
Conviction - Kidnapping and Murder - Section 302 IPC, Section 365 read with Section 120B IPC - [Kidnapping and Murder] - [Section 302 IPC, Section 365, Section 120B IPC] - The court discussed the evidence of last seen, recovery of the murder weapon, and the medical evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The court found the accused Sanwra guilty of kidnapping and murdering the victim, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The court acquitted the accused Govind Ram due to lack of evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, a 12-year-old boy, was forcibly taken away and later found dead with his throat slit. The accused were convicted based on witness testimonies, recovery of the murder weapon, and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused Sanwra guilty of kidnapping and murdering the victim, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The court acquitted the accused Govind Ram due to lack of evidence.
Issues: The main issue was the guilt of the accused in the kidnapping and murder of the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of last seen, recovery of the murder weapon, and the medical evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal of accused Sanwra was dismissed, affirming his conviction and life imprisonment. The appeal of accused Govind Ram was allowed, and his conviction was quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J. - The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 07.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No.6/2013:
Accused Sanwra:-
Offences Under Section
Sentences
Fine
Fine Default sentences
302 IPC
Life Imprisonment
Rs.3,000/-
1 year's further Rigorous Imprisonment
365 read with Section 120B IPC
4 Years' R.I.
Rs. 1,000/-
6 months' further Rigorous Imprisonment
Accused Govind Ram:-
Offences Under Section
Sentences
Fine
Fine Default sentences
365 read with Section 120B IPC
4 Years' R.I.
Rs.1,000/-
6 months' further Rigorous Imprisonment
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Being aggrieved of their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred these appeals under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. Since both these appeals arise out of a common Judgment, they have been heard and are being decided together.
3. Briefly stated facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeals are noted hereinbelow:-
4. The complainant Prem Lal (PW-1), submitted a complaint (Ex.P/23) at the Police Station Mandal on 09.11.2012 alleging inter alia that two days earlier, at about 8 o'clock, his nephew Shyamlal aged about 12 years, hereinafter referred to as the victim, had gone to the colony of Jats for singing Gudaliya, (a kind of folklore). At 9 o'clock, Shyamlal's companion Devi Lal and a few more boys came and informed the complainant that the boy had been forcibly taken away by the accused Sanwra, resident of Mandal. A search was made for the victim and the suspect but they could not be traced out. In the morning of 9.11.2012, someone provided information that the dead body of a child was lying on the embankment of Mandal Talaab on which, the informant proceeded there and identified the dead body to be that of the victim. It was further mentioned in the report that alongwith Sanwra, his maternal nephew Nandlal had also been seen.
5. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.264/2012 (Ex.P/25) came to be registered at the Police Station Mandal for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and the investigation was assigned to Shri Rajmal (PW-15), SHO Police Station Mandal. The Panchnama-Lash was prepared. The spot investigation memo etc. were prepared. Blood stained soil and control soil were lifted from the place of incident. The blood stained shirt and trousers of the victim were also seized. The dead body was subjected to postmortem at the Community Health Centre, Mandal and the postmortem report (Ex.P/11) was issued opining that the cause of death of the child victim was shock as a result of excessive bleeding from the neck injury. An incised wound was noticed on front of the neck extending from one side to the other. The neck muscles, carotid vessels and the trachea were severed. A few abrasions were noticeable on the body of the victim. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. The accused appellant Sanwra was apprehended on 10.11.2012 vide memo Ex.P/26 and the accused appellant Govind Ram Meena was arrested on 12.11.2012 vide memo Ex.P/27.
6. Acting upon the voluntary information (Ex.P/32) supplied by the accused Sanwra under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the Investigating Officer regarding concealment of the weapon of offence, a knife was recovered from his house vide seizure memo Ex.P/9. Acting in furtherance of the information (Ex.P/29) provided by the accused appellant Sanwra under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the Investigating Officer, his clothes which were concealed in a well, were recovered vide seizure memo (Ex.P/2). Some more confessional informations of both the accused appellants were recorded by the Investigating Officer. The blood stained shirt and trouser of the victim seized vide memo Ex.P/6, the blood stained soil and control soil lifted from the spot vide memo Ex.P/7 and the knife (Ex.P/9) recovered at the instance of the accused Sanwra were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison and serological examinatio
The main legal point established is the reliance on evidence of last seen, recovery of the murder weapon, and medical evidence to establish guilt in a kidnapping and murder case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent testimonies to establish guilt under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The judgment established the importance of motive in a murder case, the credibility of eyewitness testimony, and the application of the U. P. Children Act, 1951 in determining the sentence for a juve....
(1) Sentence – Power to impose punishment of imprisonment for life without remission is conferred only on Constitutional Courts and not on Sessions Courts.(2) Remission – No right accrues to accused ....
Confessions made voluntarily and without pressure under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are admissible as evidence.
Direct eyewitness testimony sufficient for murder conviction under Section 302 IPC despite no motive; absence of motive not fatal if evidence reliable and conclusive.
The court affirmed the conviction of the appellants for murder based on circumstantial evidence and valid identification, while acquitting one appellant due to insufficient evidence.
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.