Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Raj) 953

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN, JJ.
Nathu Lal, S/o. Unkar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 2 of 2018 Connected With D.B. Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 153 of 2019
Decided On : 09-09-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. M.L. Bishnoi, Mr. Rajendra Charan.
For the Respondent: Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG.

IMPORTANT POINT
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:
Criminal Law - Kidnapping and Murder - IPC Sections 120-B, 302, 365, 397, 201 - The court emphasized the necessity of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt, highlighting contradictions in witness testimonies and the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant reported his mother missing, leading to an investigation that revealed her kidnapping and murder by the accused-appellants, who were later convicted based on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found significant contradictions in the prosecution's case, particularly regarding the last seen evidence and the identification of the deceased, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the charges of kidnapping and murder against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence linking the accused to the crime, which was not achieved in this case.
Result: The conviction and sentence of the accused-appellants were set aside, and they were acquitted of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

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 :

“It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2017 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara (Rajasthan) in Sessions Case No.24/2012 may kindly be set aside and the appellant may kindly be acquitted.”

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 accuse