Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJEEV KUMAR, RAJESH SEKHRI, JJ.
Raj Kumari - Appellant
Versus
State of J&K - Respondent
CRA No. 11 of 2018 c/w CONF No. 10 of 2016
Decided on : 27-09-2024
(A) Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 - Section 302 - Conviction for murder - Appellant convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine - Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including last seen theory and recovery of stolen ornaments - Court found prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances linking appellant to the crime. (Paras 1, 24, 50)
(B) Last Seen Theory - The prosecution must prove the accused was last seen with the deceased, shifting the burden of proof to the accused - Conviction cannot solely rely on this theory without corroborating evidence. (Paras 32, 38)
(C) Disclosure Statement - The admissibility of a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act requires that the discovery must be in consequence of the information provided while in police custody - The prosecution failed to meet this requirement. (Paras 40, 44)
(D) Inconsistencies in Evidence - Material contradictions in witness testimonies regarding injuries and circumstances surrounding the death undermine the prosecution's case. (Paras 48, 50)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering her aunt, Soma Devi, during a robbery. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory and recovery of stolen ornaments from a goldsmith.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances linking the appellant to the crime, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was not sustainable.
Issues: The main issues included whether the appellant was last seen with the deceased, the admissibility of the disclosure statement, and the credibility of witness testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution did not prove the last seen theory, failed to adhere to the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the disclosure statement, and that inconsistencies in witness testimonies undermined the prosecution's case.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Sekhri, J.
01. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2016, propounded by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua (fort short, “the trial court”) in file No. 28/Challan titled “State vs. Raj Kumari”, vide which, appellant came to be convicted for offence under Section 302 of Ranbir Panel Code, 1989, [“RPC”], and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default in the payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
02. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on multiple grounds, however, before the grounds urged in the memo of appeal are adverted to, it shall be apt to have a bird's eye view of the background facts of the case.
03. The prosecution story, as unfurled from the charge sheet, is that on 24.10.2012, PW Jaswant Singh lodged an oral report in Police Station, Kathua, alleging inter alia that during the intervening night of 23rd/24th of October 2012, while his aunt namely, Soma Devi, who was residing in ward no. 10, Kathua was asleep, some unknown persons trespassed into her house, killed her and was robbed of her gold ear rings. It was reported that dead body of the deceased was lying on the bed in her room. On the receipt of this report, the police agency swung into action, FIR No. 431/2012, came to be registered and investigation came into vogue. During investigation, the investigating agency, besides other legal formalities, lifted finger prints from the room of the deceased, seized blood stained articles and one brick lying in the veranda of the house. The investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses in terms of Sections 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC.
04. It surfaced during investigation that marriage of the daughter of appellant, was slated for 27.10.2012. About 15-20 days prior to the occurrence, appellant came to the house of PW Kamlesh Kumari to invite her on the wedding of her daughter. The appellant met the deceased in her house, where PW Kamlesh Kumari used to work as a domestic help. The appellant on seeing the deceased wearing gold ear rings and finger rings, thought to steal them. Accordingly, on 23.10.2012, the appellant along with her son came to the house of PW Kamlesh Kumari at about 3.00/3.30 PM and in the evening met the deceased in her house. The appellant after survey of the house of the deceased, returned to the house of PW Kamlesh Kumari and during the intervening night, when all were asleep, the appellant went to the house of the deceased Soma Devi, who opened the door and allowed her to sleep with her on the bed. It is alleged that when deceased fell asleep, the appellant assaulted the deceased on her head with a brick and robbed the aforesaid ornaments. It is also alleged that appellant also made an abortive attempt to break open the lock of the room to steal other articles and returned to the house of PW Kamlesh Kumari via the roof of the house. It also surfaced that subsequently, the appellant handed over the stolen ornaments to PW Anil Kumar, a goldsmith, for preparation of ornaments for her daughter and during investigation, said gold ornaments came to be recovered by the investigating agency from the goldsmith, PW Anil Kumar, pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant. From the foregoing material, the investigating agency came to the conclusion that the deceased after being done to death was robbed of her gold ornaments by the appellant and filed charge-sheet against her under Sections 302/392 RPC.
05. The appellant was charged by the trial court for the aforesaid offences, whereby she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, prompting the trial court to ask for the prosecution evidence and prosecution has examined 16 witnesses to establish the charge.
06. A brief resume of the prosecution evidence is as below:-
07. PW 1 Jaswant Singh is the complainant.
He has deposed that on 24.10.2012 at about 8.30 AM
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.
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 must form an unbroken chain pointing solely to the guilt of the accused; confessions made in police custody are inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of facts.
The judgment underscores that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The court emphasized the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, finding insufficient evidence to uphold convictions for murder and robbery.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, requiring all circumstantial evidence to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
The principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain leading to the guilt of the accused, with no reasonable doubt remaining, was emphasized, highlighting the necessity for the prose....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
