RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, Devendra Kachhawaha, JJ.
Pola Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 982 of 2012
Decided On : 15-03-2021
Murder - Conviction - IPC Sections 302, 201 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, emphasizing the burden of proof on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, leading to the affirmation of the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife, Kalawati, who was found dead after being reported missing. Evidence included witness testimonies, forensic findings, and the appellant's alleged confession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of a child witness and forensic evidence, established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, despite the defense's claims of lack of motive and evidence.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt for the murder of his wife beyond reasonable doubt, considering the circumstantial evidence and the alleged extra-judicial confession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the circumstantial evidence, combined with the failure of the appellant to explain the incriminating circumstances, justified the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Result: The appeal was rejected, affirming the conviction of the appellant.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Mehta, J. - The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 19.10.2012 passed by learned Special Additional District & Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases) Sriganganagar in Sessions Case No.42/2011:
| Offences | Sentences | Fine | Fine Default sentences |
| Sec. 302 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.2,000/- | 6 Months? Additional Simple Imprisonment |
| Sec. 201 IPC | Seven Years? SI | Rs.1,000/- | 3 Months? Additional Simple Imprisonment |
(Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently)
2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has approached this Court by way of this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
3. Facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow:-
The appellant herein was married to Kalawati, D/o Brijlal Kumhar R/o Mahifwali in the year 2000. Two sons were born from their wedlock. Smt. Kalawati was working as an A.N.M. and was posted at the Primary Health Centre, 10 K.D., Village Rawla and was residing there in the Government accommodation with her husband and sons. On 22.10.2011, Kalawati's brother-in-law (Jeth) Liluram (PW-4) called her brother Shri Indraj (PW-1) and informed him that Kalawati had been abducted. On hearing this, Shri Indraj (PW.1) alongwith his younger brother Daleep Kumar (PW-6) and cousin Mahaveer (PW-8) started from their village Mahifwali and reached 10 K.D. Village Rawla. They made an enquiry from Pola Ram who replied that in the previous night between 11.30 and 11.45, a quarrel had taken place between him (Pola Ram) and Kalawati and thus, he had strangled her to death and threw the dead body into the D.O.L. canal for destroying evidence. Enquiry was also made from the Sarpanch of the Village 10 K.D., Rawla who also confirmed the fact that Pola Ram wanted Kalawati to leave the job of A.N.M., but she was not agreeing to it and being angered by her resistance, Pola Ram had beaten up Smt. Kalawati a few times previously. Pola Ram had been counselled by the family members, but did not mend his ways and eventually, Smt. Kalawati was killed and her dead body was thrown into the canal. Shri Indraj (PW-1) lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) with the above allegations to the SHO Police Station Rawla on 22.10.2011 at about 01.15 pm, on the basis whereof, an FIR No.232/2011 (Ex.P/24), came to be registered at the Police Station, Rawla for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and investigation was commenced. It may be mentioned here that well before the registration of the FIR (Ex.P/24), on 22.10.2011, in the morning at about 6 O' clock, Shri Hansraj Godara (PW.10), husband of the village Sarpanch, had given an information to Shri Chandra Prakash, SI (PW.14) that Smt. Kalawati was missing since previous night and that something untoward might have happened to her at the hands of her husband. This information was noted down in Roznamcha Entry No.887 (Ex.P/51A). Sub-Inspector Shri Chandra Prakash, along with the police constables proceeded to the village 10 K.D. Rawla where, the written report (Ex.P/1) came to be submitted before him by Shri Indraj (PW-1). During the course of investigation, a photographer was summoned and the place of incident was got extensively photographed. Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/2) and description of the site (Ex.P/2A) were prepared. Following incriminating articles were seized from the place of the incident i.e., Government Quarter, Primary Health Centre, where Smt. Kalawati was residing with her husband and two children:-
(1) a khes (bed cover), a Gudad (a kind of cotton mattress), two pillow covers, a pouch of tobacco, scissors and a blood stained water tumbler (Lota), vide seizure memo Ex.P/3,
(2) broken pieces of bangles and a nose-pin, vide seizure memo Ex.P/4,
(3) a clump of black coloured hair of a female, vide seizure memo Ex.P/5.
The

State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh
AI
When it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that Mahesh was abducted by the accused and they took him out of that area, the accused alone knew what happened to him until he was with them. If h....
Criminal Law – Offence of Murder - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - Prosecution has succeeded in establishing other circumstances in chain raising a strong presumption of guilt ag....
The burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act shifts to the accused if the prosecution establishes the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence ....
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt in murder cases, especially when the accused fails to explain their presence at the crime scene.
Circumstantial evidence in domestic murder cases places the burden of explanation on the accused; failure to do so can lead to conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence, including bloodstains on the accused's clothing matching the victims' blood groups, to establish guilt in ....
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain conclusively proving guilt; failure to provide plausible explanations by the accused strengthens the case for conviction.
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.