Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1757 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Jankilal

2015-10-07

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, PRAKASH GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Prakash Gupta, J. This criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the State seeking to assail judgment dated 24.12.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Camp Court, Bhawani Manedi, District Jhalawar (for short 'the Trial Court'), whereby the respondents-accused have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 or 302/34 IPC. 2. The facts of the case are that a written report (Exhibit P-8) was submitted by Radhey Shyam (P.W. 2) to S.H.O., Police Station Sunail on 10.05.2012 stating therein that on previous day, i.e., 09.05.2012, at about 9.00 P.M., his father Balaram was standing in his agriculture field. At that time, his father abused Janki Lal Bhanoj stating that he was responsible for sale of lane of his relative (Byae). Prathvi Singh (P.W. 4), son of younger brother of the deceased, upon hearing this, intervened and took his uncle away from there. While Prathvi Singh came back to his house, Balaram did not return and he rather went to the well of Devi Lal, where a party (Goth) was organised by Devi Lal, Janki Lal and other persons, whose names were not known to the informant, Radhey Shyam. His father did not return back to home for the whole night and on following day, i.e., 10.05.2012, his dead body was found lying near the fields of Mohan Ji and Radha Kishan. The deceased had received injuries on his hands, legs and head. The informant expressed doubt that Janki Lal or the persons, who were present in the party, may be responsible for his father's death. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No. 59/2012 (Exhibit P-7) was registered for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and investigation commenced in the matter. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhawani Mandi under Section 302/34 IPC wherefrom the case was committee to the Trial Court for trial. The Trial Court framed charges under Section 302 or 302/34 against the respondents-accused, which they denied and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, produced 23 witnesses and exhibited several documents. Thereafter, the respondents-accused were examinee under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The respondents-accused denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded innocence. The learned Trial Court, by impugned judgment dated 24.12.2014 acquitted the respondents-accused of the charges levelled against them. The prosecution, in support of its case, produced 23 witnesses and exhibited several documents. Thereafter, the respondents-accused were examinee under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The respondents-accused denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded innocence. The learned Trial Court, by impugned judgment dated 24.12.2014 acquitted the respondents-accused of the charges levelled against them. Hence, this leave to appeal has been filed by the State. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that Smt. Sugan Bai (P.W. 13), daughter of the deceased, has clearly stated in her statement that on previous day, Shambhu Lal came to their house at about 7.00 P.M. and her father accompanied him. Shambhu Lal has reason to murder her father because her father had lodged FIR against him for committing rape upon Ajwanti Bai (P.W. 21), in which case he was convicted and had to remain in jail. Ajwanti Bai (P.W. 21), in her statement, has also expressed doubt against Shambhu Lal for causing death of Balaram and stated that about 15-20 bears ago, Shambhu Lal had raped her and her father, brother-in-law and Balaram went to police station and lodged report against him. 5. Besides, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that P.W. 2, Radhey Shyam, informant has also stated in his statement that Shambhu used to threaten his father and on the previous day, his father was engaged in altercation with Janki Lal Bhanej and Janki Lal and Shambhu Lal were abusing his father. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that Axe (Kulhadi) has been recovered at the instance of Janki Lal vide Exhibit P-17 and stone, which as per FSL report was found to contain blood stains, was recovered at the instance of Shambhu Lal vide Exhibit P-2. Evidence of last seen against the respondents-accused was, thus, sufficient to prove their guilt and convict them for the crime. 6. We have been taken through statements of prosecution witnesses by the learned Public Prosecutor, especially the statements of P.W. 2, Radhey Shyam, informant; P.W. 13, Smt. Sugan Bai, daughter of the deceased; P.W. 21, Ajwanti Bai; P.W. 3, Bane Singh; P.W. 4 Prathvi Singh; P.W. 5 Ram Prasad and P.W. 6 Dr. K.K. Saini. 7. 6. We have been taken through statements of prosecution witnesses by the learned Public Prosecutor, especially the statements of P.W. 2, Radhey Shyam, informant; P.W. 13, Smt. Sugan Bai, daughter of the deceased; P.W. 21, Ajwanti Bai; P.W. 3, Bane Singh; P.W. 4 Prathvi Singh; P.W. 5 Ram Prasad and P.W. 6 Dr. K.K. Saini. 7. Statement of Prathvi Singh (P.W. 4), according to informant, is more reliable than the statement of Smt. Sugan Bai (P.W. 13), daughter of the deceased because he is one, who on the previous day saw Balaram in altercation with Janki Lal. In fact, he told that Balaram was abusing Janki Lal that he was responsible for sale of lane of his relative (Byae) and that on the previous night, a party (Goth) was organised at the well of Devi Lal, but Prathvi Singh (P.W. 4), who is said to be son of younger brother of the deceased, in his cross-examination has not supported the case of the prosecution on these aspects. He has, rather, stated that he did not see any altercation between the deceased Balaram and the accused-respondents. He has further stated that he did not even see Balaram at the well of Devilal in the party. Another witness namely Bane Singh (P.W. 3) has admitted that party was indeed organised at the well of Devi Lal and Balaram was present there, who had also taken meal in that party and he at that place abused Janki Lal, but this witness claimed that he took Balaram to village. He did not see anybody running behind Balaram and he did not see Janki Lal abusing Balaram. 8. P.W. 5, Ram Prasad, in his statement, has not supported prosecution case and stated that he did not see Balaram at party, although he went to attend the party. But, P.W. 7, Devi Lal has admitted that deceased, Balaram has attended party and after the party disbursed, he did not see anybody abusing Balaram or running behind him with Axe (Kulhadi). Besides, P.W. 13, Smt. Sugan Bai, in her cross examination, has stated that 8-10 persons were there, who attended the party, therefore, the evidence of last seen which is only against Shambhu Lal and Janki Lal, would not carry weightage because in that case, they would be expected to be in company of 5-6 other persons as well. Besides, P.W. 13, Smt. Sugan Bai, in her cross examination, has stated that 8-10 persons were there, who attended the party, therefore, the evidence of last seen which is only against Shambhu Lal and Janki Lal, would not carry weightage because in that case, they would be expected to be in company of 5-6 other persons as well. Therefore, on the basis of such last seen evidence alone, Shambhu Lal and Janki Lal cannot be convicted. Recovery of Axe (Kulhadi) has been made at the instance of Janki Lal, but that Axe (Kulhadi) has not been found to contain any blood stains, as per the FSL Report. Conviction of Shambhu Lal also cannot be recorded on the basis of recovery of stone at his instance containing blood stains because dead body of the deceased Balaram had been recovered from open place, which is evident from Exhibit P-32, photograph showing that it was open place, having hare surface with several stones scattered here and there and some of them were containing human blood. 9. In a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, evidence of last seen is one circumstance. In a serious offence of murder, each circumstance against an accused must be independently proved and all taken together should form a chain so as complete as to rule out every hypothesis that may be compatible with his innocence. The last seen evidence does not by itself necessarily lead to inference that it was accused alone and none else, who committee crimes. Unless the same is proved by cogent evidence, with no missing links in the chain of circumstances, which unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. The theory of last seen together evidence cannot by itself be held to be a factor, on which alone conviction of an accused can be sustained. The evidence of last seen may merely lend support for other circumstances in the chain of circumstances, but in the absence of other incriminating circumstances, the evidence of last seen may alone not be sufficient to hole the accused-respondents guilty of the charges. There were several missing links in the chain of circumstances against the accused, which was not so complete as to rule out every hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused. 10. There were several missing links in the chain of circumstances against the accused, which was not so complete as to rule out every hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused. 10. In view of above discussion, we do not fine infirmity or illegality in the judgment passed by the Trial Court in acquitting the respondents-accused. No case for grant of leave to appeal is made out and the same is declined. The leave to appeal is dismissed.