Back
2022 Supreme(J&K) 691
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAJNESH OSWAL, PUNEET GUPTA, JJ.
Ram Dayal and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of J&K and Another – Respondents
CRA No. 9 of 2008
Decided On : 23-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sunil Sethi, Paras Gupta.
For the Respondent: Rahul Sharma.
IMPORTANT POINT
In criminal cases, particularly those relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and any gaps in evidence or inconsistencies in witness testimonies must be resolved in favor of the accused.
Headnote:
MURDER - Homicide under RPC and Arms Act - Section 302 RPC, Section 34 RPC, Section 4/25 Arms Act - The court discussed the legal provisions under Section 302 RPC concerning murder, Section 34 RPC regarding common intention, and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act related to illegal possession of arms. The court emphasized the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. The court highlighted the importance of establishing a clear chain of evidence and the credibility of witness testimonies, ultimately concluding that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Lochan Singh under Section 302 RPC and related charges. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, motivated by jealousy over a romantic relationship, attacked the deceased with a khokhri, leading to his death. The case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the weapon and a gold chain belonging to the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable connection between the appellants and the crime. Key witnesses turned hostile, and the circumstantial evidence presented was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the lack of direct evidence linking the appellants to the murder.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the weapon and the motive for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that excludes any reasonable doubt regarding the innocence of the accused. The court emphasized the need for corroboration of witness testimonies and the importance of proving motive when circumstantial evidence is the primary basis for conviction.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, concluding that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving the charges against them beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT :
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
1. The appellants were convicted vide judgment dated 22.03.2008 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) for commission of offence under section 302 RPC, read with Section 34 RPC, appellant No. 1 was further convicted for commission of offence under section 4/25 Arms Act and vide order dated 24.03.2008, the appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 25,000/- for commission of offence under section 302 RPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellants were further directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. The appellant No. 1 was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for commission of offence under section 4/25 Arms Act and further imprisonment for three months in the event of default in making payment of fine.
2. The judgment and the order of sentence have been assailed by the appellants in this appeal on the grounds that the evidence led by the prosecution did not connect the appellants with the alleged commission of crime and further that the material witnesses were not associated with the investigation and that there are different versions with regard to the recoveries. It is also stated that the weapon was blood stained but in fact the weapon, which was sent to FSL, was not blood stained.
3. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that the eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and further the recovery of the weapon of offence is also not proved and rather there is dispute as to whether the weapon of offence allegedly recovered was used in the commission of offence or not. He also laid stress that the motive remained unproved as the girl with whom the prosecution alleged the appellant No. 1 and deceased to have relations has not been associated with the investigation. Precisely, the argument of Mr. Sethi is that the prosecution has miserably failed in its duty to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt against the appellants and in fact there was no evidence against the Appellant No. 2.
4. Per contra, Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned Dy. AG appearing for the respondent has vehemently argued that the prosecution has led cogent evidence to prove all the incriminating circumstances against the appellants and the recoveries from the appellants were also proved. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment passed by the learned trial court, as such, the appeal warrants its dismissal.
5. Heard and perused the record.
PROSECUTION CASE
6. The facts as they stem out from the charge sheet are that a docket was sent by ASI Abdul Aziz for registration of FIR with Police Station, Domana on 28.04.1996 that was received at 1500 hours in the Police Station. It was mentioned in the docket that he along with Krishan Lal and Survesh were on patrolling duty when a dead body was found in a nallah at Village Deode-Kubbe. The dead body was taken out from the nallah and there was deep cut in the neck and other injuries on neck and head of the dead body, these were injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon. On receipt of this docket, FIR No. 60/1996 for commission of offence under section 302 RPC was registered. The investigation commenced and during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the recovery of the dead body and also got conducted the photography of the dead body. The dead body was taken into custody by the Police and thereafter post-mortem was also conducted. The clothes worn by the deceased were also seized. The dead body was handed over to the legal representatives of the deceased for performance of last rites. The statements of witnesses were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and site plan of place of occurrence was also prepared. Further offences under section 4/27 Arms Act and Section 34 RPC were also added. The accu
