Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1696
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Shree Chandrashekhar, Chandra Shekhar Sharma, JJ.
Sharwan Singh son of Shri Bhanwar Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 674/2013
Decided On : 25-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Laxmi Rathore, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
In circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that excludes reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 397 - Conviction and sentence under murder and robbery charges - The appellant was convicted based on circumstantial evidence but the court found the evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 2, 10)
(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Standard of proof - The prosecution must establish a clear chain of evidence to prove guilt in circumstantial cases, leaving no reasonable doubt about the accused's involvement. (Paras 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Shrawan based on circumstantial evidence, including bloodstains and recovery of a motorcycle, but no eyewitnesses were present. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charge against the appellant under the relevant sections of the IPC due to insufficient evidence. (Paras 10)
Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and whether the prosecution met the burden of proof required for conviction. (Paras 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution must provide a complete chain of evidence that excludes any reasonable doubt regarding the accused's innocence. (Paras 9)
Result: The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence both dated 05th June 2013 rendered in Sessions Case No.13/2012.
2. In the sessions trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.50,000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has further been convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for fourteen years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under section 397 of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation to undergo simple imprisonment for one and a half month.
3. The case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence as no person came forward to inform the Investigating Officer about the manner of occurrence and the person who had committed murder of Shrawan. The case of the prosecution as projected in the written report of Kishana Ram is that on 10th April 2012 around 7:05 AM a telephonic information was received from Sarpanch of Kharia Neev that a dead body was seen in a ditch connecting the road leading to Sojat City. In the written report, Kishana Ram stated that Shrawan who was his nephew was working at the shop of Sohanji Kumhar. On 09th April 2012, Shrawan started for the shop of Sohanji Kumhar and did not come back home. On the next day, when he received an information about the dead body of an unknown person lying in the ditch near the road leading to Sojat City he went there and identified that the dead body was of his nephew Shrawan. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the appellant and he faced the trial on the charge of committing murder of Shrawan.
4. In the trial, the prosecution examined twenty three witnesses out of whom the Investigating Officer tendered evidence as P.W.-19. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat (Pali) considered seven incriminating circumstances which were projected against the appellant to establish the charge of murder against him. However, the learned Judge did not accept the theory of last seen together and disbelieved the evidence of recovery of mobile phone at the instance of the appellant. In paragraph no.44 of the judgment under challenge, the learned Judge dealt with the incriminating materials established against the appellant in the following manner :-
^^44- vr% mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;kas esa mijksDr foospu ds i'pkr eSa bl er ij igq¡pk gw¡ fd vfHk;kstu i{k vfHk;qDr ds fo:) fuEu ifjfLFkfr;k¡ fl) djus esa lQy jgk gS%
1%& vfHk;qDr dks gLrxr izdj.k esa fnukad 22@04@2012 dks QnZ izn'kZ ih 38 ds tfj;s fxj¶rkj djus ij mldh deht] isUV ij [kwu ik;k tkuk o fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk dh fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih 49 ds vuqlkj mijksDr [kwu dk ekuo jDr gksuk o mijksDr [kwu dk xzqi ekSds ls ¼nq?kZVuk LFky ls½ tCr dh xbZ [kwu vkywnk feV~Vh o e`rd dh pIiyksa] ?kM+h] diM+s ij ik;s x;s [kwu ds xzqi ds leku gksuk]
2%& vfHk;qDr }kjk nh xbZ nQk 27 dh lwpuk ds vuqlj.k esa vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh }kjk QnZ tCrh ih 13 ds tfj;s e`rd ds LokfeRo dh eksVjlkbfdy la[;k vkj ts 22@ ,l ,Q 4290 tCr djuk o mijksDr eksVjlkbfdy dh lhV ij fiNys fgLls esa [kwu ds NhaVs yxs gq, ik;k tkuk o eksVjlkbfdy ds ihNs dsfj;j ij csd cRrh ij [kwu ds NhaVs yxs gq, ik;k tkuk o iqfyl }kjk mijksDr eksVjlkbfdy dh lhV dk og fgLlk ftl ij [kwu yxk gqvk Fkk] dks dksV dj tCr djuk o fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk dh fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih 49 ds vuqlkj mijksDr lhV ij ik;k x;k [kwu dk xzqi e`rd ds diM+kas vkfn o ekSds ij ikbZ xbZ [kwu vkywnk feV~Vh ds [kwu dk xzqi leku gksuk]
3%& vfHk;qDr Jo.kflag dh fxj¶rkjh ds le; QnZ izn'kZ ih 38 ds vuqlkj mldh tsc ls ghjks gks.Mk Liys.Mj eksVj lkbfdy dh pkch ikbZ tkuk]
4%& vfHk;qDr Jo.kflag ds pksV izfrosnu ds vuqlkj mlds 'kjhj ij pksVsa ikbZ tkuk] mDr pksVksa dh vof/k ?kVuk ds le; dh gksuk]**
English Translation :-
"44. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid circumstances and after due interpretation of the above discussion, I have reached on this conclusion that the prosecution has successfully established the following circumstances against the accused.
1:- The accused, in the present case, was ar
