SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Raj) 1162

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. Honble PREM SHANKER ASOPA, J.
Ajay Kumar @ Jagveer Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 1083 of 2003
Decided On : April 25, 2006

Advocates Appeared:
D.D. Khandelwal, Amicus Curiae, for Appellant R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor

Headnote:Penal Code, Sec. 302, 394, 449 – Circumstantial evidence – Accused was tenant of deceased – Death of deceased was homicidal in nature – Disclosure statement – Recovery of iron moosli stained with human blood, incriminating articles, blood stained clothes, her ornaments – Past conduct of accused – False plea of alibi – Held – False plea of alibi itself provides additional link to the chain of circumstances – The incriminating circumstances on taking together form a complete chain leading to an inference that it was only the accused who committed crime and nobody else.

       

Honble SHARMA, J.–Jagveer Singh, the appellant herein, was born in village Majhola Police Station Hathras Junction (UP). He came to Jaipur with fictitious name Ajay Kumar and became tenant of Suraj Devi (now deceased) in her house No. 505 Gangauri Bazar. On February 17, 2001 Suraj Devi was found killed in her room which was locked from out side. On the allegation of murder of Suraj Devi, the appellant was put to trial before the learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases) Jaipur City, Jaipur, who vide judgment dated September 5, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-

u/S. 302 IPC:

To suffer imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 3000/-, in default to further suffer three and half months rigorous imprisonment.

u/S. 394 IPC:

To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine Rs. 2,000/- in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.

u/S. 449 IPC:

To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine Rs. 1,000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

Substantive sentence were ordered to run concurrently.

(2). On the written report of informant Virendra Kumar (PW. 5) case under Section 302 IPC was registered at Police Station Kotwali Jaipur on February 17, 2001. Dead body of Suraj Devi got recovered from her kitchen. Necessary memos were drawn. The appellant, who was the tenant of Suraj Devi, was arrested and at his instance weapon allegedly used in commission of offence and some ornaments got recovered. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Cases) Jaipur City Jaipur. Charges under Sections 449, 394 and 302 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 20 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3). We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the material on record.

(4). In the absence of any eye witness to prove its case the prosecution relied upon the following circumstances to connect the appellant with the offence alleged against him:-

(i) Death of Suraj Devi was homicidal in nature.

(ii) Iron Moosali stained with human blood allegedly used in commission of the crime got recovered at the instance of the appellant;

(iii) Clothes stained with human blood got recovered at the instance of the appellant.

(iv) Ornaments belonging to the deceased got recovered from Sarafa shop at the instance of appellant.

(v) On the date of incident the appellant was residing as tenant in the house of the deceased.

(vi) Past conduct of the appellant.

(vii) False plea of alibi raised by the appellant.

(5). The prosecution has established that death of Suraj Devi was homicidal in nature. As per post mortem report (Ex. P. 43) she received following injuries:-

1. Oval crushed lacerated wound in left side forehead 3cm x 1 cm x bone deep with clotted blood caused by blunt object

2. Red Bruise with swelling just Rt. side of mid line forehead 2 cm diameter caused by blunt object.

3. Red bruise outer end of Rt. eye brow 2 cm diameter caused by blunt object.

4. Rt. ear lobule lacerated & torn with flap missing at outer edge with clotted blood caused by blunt object.

5. Two red bruise patches in Lt. zygomatic arch area 2 cm & 1 cm diameter caused by blunt object.

6. verticle L.W. in occipital region 7 cm x 3cm x bone deep with clotted blood caused by blunt object.

In the opinion of Dr. B.M. Upadhyaya (PW. 19) the cause of death was head injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

(6). Indisputably the appellant on the day of incident was residing in the house of deceased as tenant. Khurshid Ahmed (PW. 16) had gone to Police Station Hathras Junction in search of past record of the app






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top