Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VIJAY BISHNOI, RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI, JJ.
State Of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Iqbal S/o Shri Abdul Rahman – Respondents
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1992
Decided On : 04-08-2023
Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only when:-
(1) The appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is perverse or the conclusion drawn by it cannot be drawn on any view of the evidence.
(2) Where the application of law is improperly done.
(3) Where there is substantial omission to consider the evidence existing on record.
(4) The view taken by the acquitting Court is impermissible on the evidence on record.
(5) If the order of acquittal is allowed to stand it will result in the miscarriage of justice.
Circumstance of illicit relationship – Illicit relationship is generally concealed from public gaze and only a few are aware of such a fact. The people generally tend to suppress this fact to protect family honour for fear of societal disapproval. It is nearly impossible for the prosecution to collect direct evidence of an illicit relationship and therefore, it has to be rely upon statements of the witnesses.
Recovery of blood stained articles – Recovery of articles cannot take place of substantive proof against the accused. If the evidence in the nature of recovery does not appear wholly satisfactory, the recoveries at the instance of the accused cannot carry prosecution case any further.
Prosecution did not examine the doctor who conducted autopsy – Sub-Section (4) of Section 293 of Criminal Procedure Code contemplates that the documents issued by the Government Scientific Expert enumerated under sub-Section (4) need not be examined and the documents can be marked but it does not contemplate production of postmortem reports without examining the doctor.
Contents of PMR – Can be proved only by producing its scribe Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body- In the instant case, the PMR has been exhibited by Investigating Officer which is of no use for the prosecution and contents of PMR as well as cause of death cannot be considered proved.
Circumstantial Evidence – Circumstances from which conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature, they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. There must be chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have done by the accused.
JUDGMENT
Per Hon’ble R.P. Soni, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.08.1990 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, (District Pali), in Sessions Case No.13/1986 (63/1983) acquitting the respondents-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 in alternate 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the accused were charged and tried for allegedly committing murder of Pyari Bai on 13.05.1983 between 11.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. suffocating her by stuffing a cloth into her mouth.
2. The facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of present appeal against acquittal, briefly stated, are that on 13.05.1983 at about 2.15 p.m., constable Jeeva Ram (PW-12) of Police Station Bali (District Pali) gave an oral information (ExP-11) to the effect that when he reached Gandhi Chowk at about 2.00 p.m. while patrolling in the town, he saw a crowd there. People in the crowd were saying that an aged woman had been murdered by stuffing a cloth into her mouth. He went to Khardia Bas, where, a large crowd was gathering outside the house of Babulal Jain which was situated adjacent to municipality building. Wife of Babulal Jain Bhagyawanti was present in the house. Some people were also standing inside the house. In the Pole ¼iksy½ of the house, there was a little bit of blood on the floor and a small bucket was also kept in the chowk ¼pkSd½ of the house, which was half full of water and the colour of which was like red. It led him to guess that the culprit had washed his blood stained hands in that bucket. In a room, Pyari Bai, the mother-in-law of Bhagyawanti had a cloth stuffed into her mouth and was lying dead on a cot. The cloth was full of blood. There was blood on both the shoulders of her blouse as well and blood was also oozing out of her nose and mouth. Two small carpets, lying there, were also found blood stained. 2-3 boxes were lying open in the room.
3. F.I.R. further stated that it appeared that someone has murdered Pyari Bai suffocating her by stuffing a cloth into her mouth. Bhagyawanti, the daughter-in-law ¼cgw½ of the deceased who was present there, told on being asked that the incident took place during the day between 11.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. when she alongwith her children was sleeping on the upper floor of the house. Her husband lives in Bombay. Only Pyari Bai and Bhagyawanti alongwith her children live in the house where the incident took place.
4. In pursuance of the said complaint lodged by constable Jeeva Ram, the investigation was set in motion and the charge-sheet was filed against both the respondents. After the case was committed to the court of Sessions, the charges for the offences punishable under Section 302 in alternate 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the respondents to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
5. To bring home guilt of the respondents, prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses and also got exhibited 28 different documents. Upon being confronted with the allegations set out in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, both the respondents denied all incriminating circumstances put to them and claimed that they had been falsely implicated and are innocent. The defence propounded by the respondents in the course of trial was of total denial. There were 13 defence witnesses examined by the respondents in support of their defence.
6. We have mulled upon the arguments advanced by both the parties, gone through the impugned order and thoroughly re-appreciated the evidence available on record and also given respectful and thoughtful consideration to the law.
7. It is admitted case of the prosecution that nobody had seen the actual incident, which happened with the deceased. However, according to the prosecution, husband of Bhagyawanti lived in Bombay and she lived with her children and aged mother-in-law Pyari Bai at Bali town. About one and a quarter years before the incident, respondent Iqbal started a video parlour in the name and style “Rubi C
The prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence for a conviction; mere conjecture is insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence prese....
Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of crucial items, must be coherent and consistently point to guilt to meet the burden of proof required for conviction in murder cases.
Convictions under Section 302 of IPC require corroborative evidence, and in the absence of reliable evidence, guilt cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The appellate court may reverse an acquittal if it determines the trial court's findings are perverse and unsupported by credible evidence, reaffirming the reliance on direct eyewitness testimony.
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
