IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Sanjeev Kumar, Mohan Lal, JJ.
Kamlesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K – Respondent
CRA No.18/2017, IA No.1/2017 c/w CONF No.5/2017
Decided On : 23-03-2022
Ranbir Penal Code, 1989-Sections 302 and 498-A-Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 25 and 26-Murder and cruelty-There are no eye witnesses to commission of crime by appellant and entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence-Circumstantial evidence does not prove point in question directly, but establishes it only by inferences-Before convicting a person on circumstantial evidence alone, Court must fully satisfy itself that circumstances are conductively established and point convincingly to guilt of accused and that accused is unable to satisfactorily explain circumstances that leave him/her in dock-In a case based on circumstantial evidence only, proof of motive for commission of offence is not sine qua non but nonetheless it is a relevant factor and some times it fortifies different links in chain of circumstances leading to only hypothesis of guilt of accused. (Paras 12, 15, 21 and 25)
Result-Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Kumar, J.-This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and sentence order dated 16.05.2017 and 19.05.2017 respectively handed down by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udhampur [“trial Court”] in file No.78/Sessions titled State v. Kamlesh Kumar by which the trial Court has convicted the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A RPC and has sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence under Section 302 RPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 498-A RPC. The substantive sentences awarded have been provided to run concurrently.
2. With a view to appreciate the grounds of challenge urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to assail the judgment of conviction and order of sentence impugned in this appeal, it would be necessary to first briefly notice the case of prosecution, as was put up before the trial Court.
3. On 19th May, 2014, the Police Station, Pancheri received an information through reliable sources that a dead body of a lady, namely, Sushma Devi wife of the appellant resident of village Katti Teshil and District Udhampur, aged about 19/20 years has been hanging with a root of kail tree with a noose of dupatta around her neck at Khalia Dabbar jungle, Katti. The reason of death of the lady was not known. Since the death of Sushma Devi was found to have taken place under suspicious circumstances, as such, the S.H.O., Police Station, Pancheri, Mr. Harminder Singh, initiated proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The S.H.O. along with other police personnel rushed to the site of occurrence. On reaching the spot of occurrence, where the dead body of the deceased lady was lying, the site map of the place of occurrence was prepared. From the site, where dead body of the deceased was lying, the police found one phone along with charger and sim, one pair of plastic chapel and one lady shawl. All these items were seized and the photographs dead body of the deceased Sushma Devi as also the photographs of recovery of dead body were taken by the S.H.O. with his own mobile phone. The possession of the dead body was taken over by the police and seizure memo of the same was prepared accordingly. The dupatta tied round the neck of the dead body was also seized. The dead body was thereafter with the assistance of villagers and locals was first taken to the road side and then to the Pancheri hospital. The memo of surat-e-haal of the dead body of the deceased was filled up on 28th May, 2014.The clothes of the deceased were handed over to the police by the medical officer and they were seized and accordingly seizure memo was prepared. The dead body, after it was received from the hospital after post-mortem by the medical officer, was handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased for last rites. The statements of the persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case were recorded under Section 175 Cr.P.C. The viscera of the deceased along with report of the medical officer were deposited at F.S.L., Jammu for chemical analysis against proper receipt.
4. With a view to take the inquest proceedings further, the Investigating Officer along with other police personnel of Police Station, Pancheri camped on the road side at Latyar District Udhampur. The statement of PW-2, Rano Devi, the mother of the deceased was recorded under Section 175 Cr.P.C., in which she stated that the deceased Sushma Devi was her real daughter, whose marriage was solemnized with the appellant a year back. The husband of the deceased, the appellant herein, was beating Sushma Devi for bringing less dowry items. He was continuously demanding more dowry items and the deceased used to narrate this to her family members. PW-2, while continuing with her statement, stated that the appellant was advised by her and told that they do not have sufficient sources at this time and that whenever they wo
Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat
Sarwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab
SupremeToday
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; circumstantial evidence must negate the innocence of the accused, which was not established in this case.
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory in establishing the guilt of the accused.
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 prosecution failed to prove charges of murder and dowry harassment against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the application of the Last Seen Together Theory were central to the judgment. The court emphasized the need fo....
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.