Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, Sameer Jain, JJ.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Ghewar Singh & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Death Reference No. 1 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 2018
Decided On : 22-11-2021
Criminal - Kidnapping, Rape, Murder - IPC Sections 363, 366A, 376A, 376D, 302, POCSO Act Sections 5(G)/6 - The court found insufficient evidence to support the charges of kidnapping, rape, and murder, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, a 15-year-old girl, was allegedly kidnapped and later found dead. The accused were charged with multiple offenses including kidnapping, rape, and murder based on witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of medical evidence supporting claims of sexual violence.
Issues: Whether the accused were guilty of kidnapping, rape, and murder based on the evidence presented, including witness accounts and forensic findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of credible evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution, concluding that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain the convictions.
Result: The appeals are allowed, and the accused are acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J. - By the Judgment dated 06.08.2018 passed in Sessions Case No.10/2017, the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Cases, Barmer convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as below:
| Name of the accused | Offence for which convicted | Sentence awarded | ||
|
| Section 363 IPC | 7 Years' Rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months' R.I. | ||
| Section 366A IPC | 10 Years' Rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months' R.I. | |||
| Section 376A IPC | Death penalty along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 1 Year's R.I. | |||
| Section 376D IPC | Life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 1 Year's R.I. | |||
| Section 458 IPC | 10 Years' Rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months' R.I. | |||
| Section 450 IPC | 10 Years' Rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months' R.I. | |||
| Section 302 IPC | Death penalty along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 1 Year's R.I. | |||
| Section 120B IPC | Death penalty along with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 Months' R.I. | |||
| Section 5(G)/6 of POCSO Act. | 10 Years' Rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months' R.I. | |||
| All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. | ||||
| Prahlad Singh, Nar Singh & Shankar Singh | Section 347 IPC | 3 Years' Rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 3 months' R.I. | ||
| Section 201 IPC | 7 Years' Rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 6 months' R.I. | |||
| Section 19(1)/21 of the POCSO Act. | 6 Months' Rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 15 days' R.I. | |||
| All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. | ||||
2. Death Reference No. 1/2019 has been submitted by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Cases, Barmer under Section 366 of the Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation of the capital punishment awarded to the accused Ghewar Singh and Shrawan Singh.
Appeal No. 167/2018 has been filed by the accused Ghewar Singh, Prahlad Singh, Nar Singh and Shankar Singh whereas appeal No.201/2018 has been preferred by the accused Shrawan Singh for assailing the impugned Judgment.
3. As the death reference as well as the appeals arise out of the same Judgment, they have been heard and are being decided together.
4. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the case are noted herein below:
5. The child victim Mst. 'P' (hereinafter referred to as 'the victim') was allegedly kidnapped from her father's house in the night intervening 29.03.2013 and 30.03.2013. The dead body of the victim was recovered lying amongst the hills near the Kubad Mata Temple on 31.03.2013 on which, the father Shri Balwanta Ram (PW-8) lodged a report (Ex.D/4) to the SHO, Police Station Sadar Barmer on 31.03.2013 at 02.15 PM alleging inter alia that his daughter aged 15 years, who was suffering from some mental ailment, disappeared from the house on 30.03.2013. He searched for his daughter in the village but could not find her. In the morning, the dead body was seen lying amongst the hills. On the basis of this report, proceedings were registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. as Mrig No.11/2013 (Ex.D/4). About an hour later i.e. at 03.20 PM., Smt. Deu (PW-6) wife of Shri Balwanta Ram and the victim's mother, lodged a handwritten report (Ex.P/31) to the SHO, Police Station Mahila Than
The judgment underscores the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in serious offenses like kidnapping and murder.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement of reliable and substantive evidence to establish guilt, highlighting the insufficiency of recoveries alone to prove the accused's guilt.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimony and doubts over evidence credibility can lead to acquittal.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the testimonies of witnesses, especially in child rape cases, and the need for proper legal protection for minor victims.
The conviction of the appellant for sexual offences under IPC and the Goa Children's Act was upheld based on consistent testimony of the victim, emphasizing the necessity of protecting child victims ....
In criminal cases of sexual assault, the reliability of witness testimonies and timely reporting are crucial; unexplained delays and contradictions can lead to acquittal.
The prosecution failed to prove the victim's age and the occurrence of the alleged incident beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
The weight of victims' evidence in cases of sexual assault and the minor lapses in investigation such as delay in filing the FIR and lack of independent witnesses.
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
