Back
2024 Supreme(J&K) 404
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Rajnesh Oswal, Rajesh Sekhri, JJ.
Mohd. Hussain – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K – Respondent
CRA No. 1 of 2010 c/w CONF No. 01 of 2010
Decided On : 07-11-2024
For the Appellant :Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ravi Abrol, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. P. D. Singh, Dy. AG.
In circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt; any gaps benefit the accused.
Headnote:(A) Jammu and Kashmir Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 - Section 302 - Conviction for murder - The appellant was convicted based on circumstantial evidence for killing his wife, with the prosecution failing to establish a complete chain of evidence linking him to the crime. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove all circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, and any gaps in evidence must benefit the accused. (Paras 1, 34)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that are consistent only with the guilt of the accused and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. (Paras 32, 33)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for murdering his wife, allegedly due to strained relations and an illicit affair. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including a disclosure statement regarding the weapon, which was not conclusively proven. (Paras 1, 34)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the recovery of the weapon. (Paras 32, 34)
Issues: The main issues included whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and whether the appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 32, 34)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove all links in the chain of evidence, and any gaps must benefit the accused. (Paras 32, 34)
Result: The conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 34)
JUDGMENT :
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
1. The appellant has been convict ed for the commission of offence under Section 302 RPC vide judgment dated 01.01.2010 and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- vide order dated 06.01.2010, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Trial Court' for short) in charge-sheet titled “State of J&K Vs. Mohd. Hussain” arising out of FIR No. 90/2004 under Section 302/449 RPC registered with Police Station, Darhal.
2. Aggrieved of the judgment and order mentioned above, the appellant has come up with this appeal by urging that the prosecution case was based on the circumstantial evidence, and the circumstances which were alleged to be incriminating to the appellant have not been proved at all by the prosecution, therefore the appellant could not have been held guilty. It is contended by the appellant that none of the prosecution witnesses has proved the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant, and the learned trial court has acted upon the hearsay evidence for convicting the appellant.
3. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel for the appellant has argued that the prosecution could not prove that the appellant made the disclosure statement in respect of the weapon of offence concealed by him, and the witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed in respect of the factum of recovery of the weapon of an offence in different manner and in view of such discrepancies, no reliance could have been placed upon the disclosure statement allegedly made by the appellant and the consequent recovery of the weapon of offence. He has further argued that the wife of the appellant was killed by the militants and this fact has been brought on record by number of prosecution witnesses and the appellant too had furnished an explanation in his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C, that he was abducted by the militants and his wife was killed by them. He laid much stress that in view of the weak and incoherent evidence led by the prosecution, the appellant could not have been convicted by the learned trial court.
4. Per contra, Mr. P. D. Singh, learned Dy. AG appearing on behalf of the respondent has argued that the appellant had made an attempt to portray the murder of his wife by him, as a militancy related incident but he failed to prove the same and after investigation it was found that in fact, it was the appellant, who had killed his wife with whom he was having strained relationship, as he was demanding Rs. 50,000/- from her to compensate the girl with whom he was having illicit relationship. He has further argued that it was the appellant who forced the deceased to come to his village at Leeran, when she was residing along with her children at Kheora, Rajouri and after calling her to Leeran, he committed the murder of the deceased and tried to portray the incident as an act of militants. He has also laid much stress that pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant, the weapon of offence and the shirtwere recovered from a place which was in immediate vicinity of his house and merely stating in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C that he was abducted by the militants and his wife was killed by them would not mean that he had discharged his onus of rebutting the cogent evidence led by the prosecution in respect of his guilt.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Prosecution case:
6. The case projected by the prosecution is that an information was received at Police Station, Darhal, on 13.11.2004 at 9.20 A.M. from a reliable source that some unidentified persons, in the intervening night of 12/13th of November 2004 entered the house of the appellant and killed his wife -Mst. Hameeda Begum, by slitting her throat and her body was lying on spot. On receipt of this information, FIR No. 90/2004 under Section 302/449 RPC was registered and investig
