IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, NUPUR BHATI, JJ.
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Deva Ram S/o Netiji – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 605 of 1997
Decided On : 18-12-2024
JUDGMENT :
NUPUR BHATI, J.
1. The State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 27.02.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, (Rajasthan) (hereinafter referred as ‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.14/1985, whereby the accused was acquitted from the charges framed for the offences under sections 302, 364 and 417 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .
2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant, namely, Mr. Hussain submitted a written complaint (Ex.P/39) on 14.05.1985 before the S.H.O., Police Station, Nana, District Pali, stating therein that on 11.05.1985, his nephew namely, Saleem and Harun who were engaged in the business of buying and selling goats, came to him and apprised that they have made a deal with Deva son of Neti Raika to buy 100 goats and asked the complainant to give them Rs.15,000/-. In the written complaint, it was further stated that he (complainant) gave a sum of Rs.15,000/- to Saleem, the denomination whereof was; hundred currency notes were of Rs.100/- and hundred currency notes were of Rs.50/-. Thereafter, his nephews went to Kothar, however, the complainant pleaded that he does not know as to whether the money was parted with Deva or not. Yesterday, i.e. on 13.05.1985 at about 09-10:00 in the morning Deva Raika came to Chamunderi and asked Harun and Saleem to give him consideration and take the goats. At that time, complainant was present there and Harun and Saleem left the place with Rs.15,000/-. For bringing the goats, Sabir S/o Faiz Mohd. and Mohan Bavri also accompanied with his nephews and they all boarded the bus at 12’O clock. Thereafter, the complainant waited for his nephews up till late night. The complainant further alleged that today, in the morning he enquired from Sabir and Mohan Bavri about his nephews, they apprised that yesterday Deva had taken them to Kambeshwar Ji Mahadev to bring goats. Sabir and Mohan Bavri also apprised the complainant that in the afternoon at about 02:00 pm they were made to sit at the boarder (dkadM+), whereas Deva took Harun and Saleem with him to bring the goats from ahead and both accompanied Deva. Thereafter, about about one hour, Deva Raika returned and there were blood stains on his shirt (dqrkZ) and the ‘Lathi’, which he was carrying. On being asked by them, Deva apprised that he has done away with two goats and offered blood to Mataji and Harun and Saleem were sent away with goats. They further apprised that thereafter they came to Kothar with Deva. Sabir and Mohan Bavri also apprised that they came home late at night despite Deva’s refusal. The complainant further stated in the written complaint that since Harun and Saleem did not return with the goats up till morning, he got suspicious and started mounting search of his nephews with Musa son of Faiz Mohd., Sabir son of Suleman, Mohan Bavi, and Sabir in Kambeshwar Mahadev forest. During the search, they found the dead body of Harun, soaked in blood, lying under a tree on southern side of the temple, however, they could not locate Salim. It was further alleged that while leaving, Harun was wearing a ladies’ wrist watch, however, the same was missing and there was no money in the pocket of Harun. Saleem was also wearing a wrist watch, whose whereabouts are also not known. The complainant stated in the written complaint that Deva had murdered his nephews by deceiving them for money and theafter they returned to Chamunderi from the forest. With these averments/allegations, the complainant gave the report for taking action against the culprit.
3. The SHO, Police Station Nana, on receipt of the aforesaid written complaint registered a case vide F.I.R. No.33/1985 (Ex.P/40) for the offences under sections 417, 364 and 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Thereafter, in pursuance of information furnished by the accused the dead body of Saleem was also recovered from the hills.
4. To establish charges against the accus
Mohammed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra
Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
In appeals against acquittal, the burden of proof remains with the prosecution, and an acquittal should be upheld if any plausible view supports the trial court's decision.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal under IPC and SC/ST Act.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction; reasonable doubts justify acquittal.
Convictions under Section 302 of IPC require corroborative evidence, and in the absence of reliable evidence, guilt cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Another important aspect to be considered in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is the lapse of time between the point when the accused and deceased were seen together and when the deceased is....
In circumstantial evidence cases without eyewitnesses, conviction unsustainable if chain incomplete due to hostile seizure witnesses, recovery contradictions, and improper reliance on s.161 CrPC stat....
Confessions made voluntarily and without pressure under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are admissible as evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.