Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN, JJ.
Nathu Lal S/o Unkar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 2/2018
Decided on : 09-09-2024
Criminal - Conviction and Acquittal - IPC Sections 120-B, 302, 365, 397, 201 - The court emphasized the necessity of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction, highlighting contradictions in witness testimonies and the failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellants were convicted for kidnapping and murdering the complainant's mother, based on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies regarding her last seen moments with the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant contradictions in the prosecution's case, particularly regarding witness reliability and the lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the crime, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to support the conviction of the accused-appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Result: The conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants are set aside, and they are acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The instant criminal appeals have been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs:
2. Since both the instant criminal appeals arise out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara (‘Trial Court’), in Sessions Case No. 24/2012 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Nathu Lal and Anr.), therefore, the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2.1. Vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below:
| Conviction under Section(s) | Sentence(s) | Fine(s) |
| 120-B IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.15,000/- (each of the accused-appellants) in default, each of the accused-appellants to undergo further 6 months’ S.I. |
| 302 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.15,000/- (each of the accused-appellants) in default, each of the accused-appellants to undergo further 6 months’ S.I. |
| 365 IPC | Seven Years R.I. | Rs.5,000/- (each of the accused-appellants) in default, each of the accused-appellants to undergo further 1 month’s S.I. |
| 397 IPC | Seven Years R.I. | - |
| 201 IPC | Three Years R.I. | Rs.1,000/- (each of the accused-appellants) in default, each of the accused-appellants to undergo further 15 days’ S.I. |
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, as per Section 428 Cr.P.C.
3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, on 10.08.2011, one Shankar Lal (complainant) lodged a Missing Person’s Report (Ex.P-4) before the Reserve Centre (Aarakshi Kendra), Hameergarh since as per the complainant, the whereabouts of his mother were not known since 05.08.2011. It was stated in the said report that on 04.08.2011, the complainant’s mother Ramu Devi left the Village, namely, Siyaar for Mangrop to purchase certain household articles around 11-12:00 a.m., and while leaving, it was told by her that she will be back by evening; however, when she did not return back, the complainant went to Mangrop to search for his mother and such search continued till the next day i.e. 05.08.2011; but since the mother of the complainant still remained missing, the aforesaid report was lodged.
3.1. As per the complainant, even after a lapse of two and a half months, her mother could not be traced, and whereupon the family members started search for the complainant’s mother, while carrying her photo, near the nearby villages. When the family members reached Mangrop Ki Jhopadiya, they were informed by one Mohan Teli (PW-1), upon seeing the photo of complainant’s mother, that the said Mohan Teli saw her two and a half months ago going from Mangrop while sitting on a motorcycle (in the centre). The said motorcycle, as informed by PW-1, was being driven by Nathu Gadri (accused-appellant) and Shankar Jat (accused-appellant) was also sitting on the said motorcycle, behind the complainant’s mother.
3.2. On receiving such information, the complainant and his family members went to Jeeva Ka Kheda, and on reaching there, they contacted both the accused-appellants personally; whereupon, the accused-appellants started abusing the members of the complainant party, and while threatening them, the accused-appellants told the complainant that they did not know any person named Ramu Devi, and while abusing the members of the complainant party, the accused-appellants asked them to leave the village, failing which, the complainant party were threatened of facing dire consequences.
3.3. As per the complainant, by the aforesaid conduct of the
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the need for corroboration and the benefit of doubt for the accused.
For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
In criminal cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, leaving no room for alternative hypotheses of innocence....
Convictions under circumstantial evidence require a complete and unbroken chain of proof; mere suspicion is insufficient for establishing guilt.
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
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
