IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Sanjeev Kumar, M.A. Chowdhary, JJ.
Shanker - Appellant
Versus
State of J&K - Respondent
CRA No.9900002/2014 c/w CONF No.5/2014
Decided On : 31-03-2022
(A) Ranbir Penal Code, 1989-Sections 302/376-Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 7 and 114-Rape and murder-Death sentence-Minor victim-There are no eye witnesses to commission of crime and entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence-Before convicting a person on circumstantial evidence alone, Court must fully satisfy itself that circumstances are conclusively established and point convincingly to guilt of accused-Though last seen theory, if proved, relieves prosecution from burden of proving guilt by direct evidence, yet it is weak evidence and needs to be corroborated with other factors like motive and conduct of accused before and after commission of crime-There is no site plan of place of last seen prepared by Investigating Officer-Incriminating circumstances or evidence which are not put to accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C and accused is not given opportunity to explain his position, same cannot be relied upon as a relevant fact-Circumstance, that deceased was last seen in company of accused before her death, cannot be said to form a link in chain of other circumstances relied upon by prosecution-Evidence led to sustain theory of last seen put forth by prosecution is too weak and incredible to be relied upon to convict accused. (Paras 14, 16, 19, 23, 25 and 32)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 27-Disclosure statement-Basic idea embedded in Section 27 of Evidence Act is doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events-Doctrine is founded on principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that information supplied by prisoner is true-Information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information. (Paras 37 and 40)
Result-Appeal allowed. Reference declined.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
This appeal by the appellant (‘the accused’) is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.12.2013 and order of sentence dated 31.12.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu (Designated Fast Track Court for Rape Cases), [hereafter for short ‘the trial Court’] whereby the accused has been held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/376 RPC and sentenced to death.
2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Ms. Mandeep Reen, learned counsel representing the accused, to assail the impugned judgment and the order of sentence, it is necessary to first elude to complete resume of the prosecution case.
3. On 21.04.2010, at about 11.15 PM, the police of Police Station Satwari received an information through reliable sources that a dead body of an unidentified minor girl of 7/8 years of age was lying below the Digiana Pulli. Since the death of a human being had happened under mysterious circumstances, as such, with a view to find out the cause of death, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C were initiated by Shri Rajesh Sharma, Sub Inspector. He proceeded to the spot and gathered people from the nearby area. There was a missing report lodged with regard to a girl, daughter of one Babu Ram R/O Khajwar Chatterpur (M.P), residing temporarily in a Jhuggi at Shastri Nagar, Jammu, as such, said Babu Ram was called, who identified the dead body to be that of his minor daughter. The identification memo of the deceased was prepared and dead body taken into custody after collecting the samples of blood stained clay and the simple clay from the spot. The samples were seized for chemical analysis. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, SI, who was holding the inquest proceedings, also prepared the site plan of the place of incident, the photographs of the dead body were taken and the dead body was dispatched to Government Medical College, Hospital, Jammu for post-mortem. During the post-mortem, one shirt of the deceased was seized as a piece of evidence and the same, after proper sealing, was also sent for chemical analysis. The shirt was sealed with a ring, which was kept on proper supardnama. Viscera was also sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory Jammu.
4. After completion of the Post-mortem and other requisite formalities, the dead body was handed over to the legal heirs for performing the last rites. The seized packet of shirt, blood stained clay and simple clay were got re-sealed from the Executive Magistrate First Class and then sent to FSL Jammu for their examination and expert opinion. After the Post-mortem report and the viscera report were received, the Investigating officer recorded the statements of material witnesses under Section 175 Cr.P.C. During the inquest proceedings it emerged that Babu Ram Anuragi, the father of the deceased, along with his family and fellow villagers, had been living in temporary huts, (Jhuggies) at Shastri Nagar and would usually go out for work during the day time. It was on 15.04.2010 during the day time that accused, who is also a resident of Chatterpur (M.P), came to the Jhuggi of Babu Tram Anuragi, where he used to frequently visit for providing toffees etc. to the deceased. On that day the accused told the deceased to massage his body and thereafter he will give her toffees. After getting massage on his body, the accused went out of the Jhuggi and was followed by the deceased. It also came to fore that in the same evening the accused and the deceased were spotted near Digiana Pulli, holding each other’s hand. On 21.04.2010, the dead body of the deceased was found beneath the Digiana Pulli, which was lying concealed in a Cabin of the Pulli. The other clothing i.e. Shalwar, underwear and Chappels were not found on her body. After receiving the report of autopsy of the deceased and on the basis of other material and evidence collected during the inquest proceedings it was established that it was the acc
Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat
Sarwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab
Murder Charge - When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction; failure to prove the last seen theory and inconsistencies in witness testimonies led to the acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
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.