Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1983 (RAJ)

Heera Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-17

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 11 dated 26.1.2015 registered at Police Station Bhalta, District Jhalawar under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC). 2. Prosecution story, as per the FIR, in brief, is that Panchulal brother of complainant - Mangilal had died about 8 years prior to the incident. Panchulal had left behind his widow, five daughters and one son. Appellant - Heera Lal started residing with the wife of Panchulal after his death. Appellant was a liquor addict. On 26.1.2015, appellant had strangulated Naurangbai and had absconded. Before the commission of crime, appellant had quarreled with the deceased and the said fact had been witnessed by her children. When the children got up in the morning for preparing tea, they found that their mother was lying dead. 3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. 4. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Appellant did not plead guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses during trial. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in the case. 6. Trial Court vide impugned judgment/order dated 13.10.2016 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The alleged eye-witnesses had been falsely introduced in the case. Since, appellant was having a live-in relationship with the deceased, due to this reason, he has been falsely involved in this case. The rope with which the deceased had been strangulated, had not been sent to expert for determining the fingerprints on the same. There was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. In case, alleged eye-witnesses had witnessed the commission of murder of their mother at about 12.00 midnight, then they should have immediately lodged FIR, whereas, FIR was lodged after a delay of 8 hours. In-fact, it could be said to be a case based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution had failed to complete the chain of circumstances establishing the guilt of the appellant. In-fact, it could be said to be a case based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution had failed to complete the chain of circumstances establishing the guilt of the appellant. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Nirankari vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 8 SCC 497 , wherein, it was held as under:- "39. This aspect is not even dealt with by the High Court. Further, the alleged weapon i.e. cable wire was not sent to CFSL and to any scientific laboratory to confirm fingerprints of the appellant. All the aforesaid factors amply demonstrate that the prosecution has not been able to bring out and prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. There are lurking doubts in the story of the prosecution and many missing links which are pointed out above." 8. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Navaneethakrishnan vs. State by Inspector of Police, (2018) 16 SCC 161 , wherein, it has been held as under:- "27. The law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. When the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. There is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. There is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. The Court in mindful of caution by the settled principles of law and the decisions rendered by this Court that in a given case like this, where the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place and prove all the necessary circumstances, which would constitute a complete chain without a snap and pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused, no one had committed the offence, which in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove. 9. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 108 , wherein, it has been held as under:- "13.7 From the prosecution version (emerging from the evidence recorded before the Trial Court), it is apparent, that the search party, as also, the relatives of the victim were aware at about 8:00 p.m. on 27.2.2003 that Gomi had been murdered, with a possibility of her having been raped also, and her silver anklets had been stolen. Despite the above, no complaint whatsoever came to be filed in connection with the above occurrence at the police station on 27.2.2003, despite the close coordination between the search party and the police from 8:00 pm onwards no 27.2.2003 itself. The complaint leading to the filing of the first information was made at about 3:05 a.m. on 28.2.2003. Not only is the delay of seven hours in the registration of the complaint ununderstandable, but the same is also rendered extremely suspicious, on the account of the fact that the accused- respondent Kishanbhai is acknowledged to be in police detention since 9:00 p.m. on 27.2.2003 itself. This may be the result of fudging the time and date at which the victim Gomi went missing, as also, the time and date on which the body of the victim was discovered resulting in the discovery of the occurrence itself. This may be the result of fudging the time and date at which the victim Gomi went missing, as also, the time and date on which the body of the victim was discovered resulting in the discovery of the occurrence itself. The question which arises for consideration is, whether the investigation agency adopted the usual practice of padding so as to depict the occurrence in a manner different from the actual occurrence. A question also arises as to why it was necessary for the investigating agency to adopt the above practice, despite the fact that it was depicted as an open and shut case." 10. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Eradu and Others vs. State of Hyderabad, (S) AIR 1956 SC 316 (V. 48, C. 57, April), wherein, it has been held as under:- "It is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence should point inevitably to the conclusion that it was the accused and the accused only who were the perpetrators of the offence and such evidence should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. " 11. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nagaraj vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2015) 4 SCC 739 , wherein, it has been held as under:- "13. The conviction is predicated on circumstantial evidence alone. Fingerprints have not been lifted from the scene, the murder weapon has not been recovered, and any credible motive is absent. It cannot even be contended that the Accused was the last person to be seen with the Deceased since several persons including the Manager, PW 1, and the guests in the adjoining rooms could have accessed the room where the Deceased was eventually found. While circumstantial evidence is sufficient to return a conviction, this is possible if it contains all the links that connect the Accused to the incident, and the inconsistencies are extremely trivial in character. Furthermore, motive assumes great significance where a conviction is sought to be predicated on circumstantial evidence alone, and its absence can tilt the scales in favour of the Accused where all links are not avowedly present. Furthermore, motive assumes great significance where a conviction is sought to be predicated on circumstantial evidence alone, and its absence can tilt the scales in favour of the Accused where all links are not avowedly present. We think that the High Court erred in concluding that the complicity of the Accused in the murder of the Deceased had been proved beyond reasonable doubt." 12. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the presence of the eyewitnesses, who are none other than the children of the deceased, is natural on the spot. Appellant was having a live-in relationship with the deceased after she became a widow. Children of the deceased had witnessed the incident and matter was reported to the police without any inordinate delay. Eye-witnesses/children of the deceased had been threatened by the appellant with dire consequences and they must have been scared to immediately report the matter to the villagers during midnight, especially when it was winter season. 13. Present case relates to murder of Naurangbai. Case rests on eye-witness account. Appellant was in a live-in relationship with the deceased. Prosecution has examined three children of the deceased as eye-witnesses during trial. 14. PW-1, Savitri Bai had deposed that on the night of 26.1.2015, appellant had strangulated her mother with the help of a rope. The incident had occurred at their residence at midnight. She was sitting with her mother at that time. When appellant came home, he was under the influence of liquor. Appellant had been visiting their house after death of her father and lived in their house. Appellant did not permit them even to cry as he had threatened them that he would kill them. In the morning, she informed Mangilal, her uncle, with regard to the incident and Mangilal reported the matter to the police. The said witness was cross-examined at length, but her testimony with regard to the manner of occurrence could not be shaken. The presence of the said witness at the spot is natural, being daughter of the deceased. Moreover, PW-1 Savitri Bai had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case and shield the real culprit. 15. PW-2 Rachita has corroborated the statement of PW-1. The presence of the said witness at the spot is natural, being daughter of the deceased. Moreover, PW-1 Savitri Bai had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case and shield the real culprit. 15. PW-2 Rachita has corroborated the statement of PW-1. There is no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that no reliance could be placed on testimony of PW-2 as in her cross-examination, she has deposed that in the morning, she had gone to wake up her mother to prepare tea, but her mother had not got up. In case, the said witness had actually witnessed death of her mother at night, there is no occasion for her to have tried to wake up her mother in the morning to prepare tea. 16. PW-2 Rachita is a 10 years old illiterate girl and may not have understood the fact that on account of strangulation of her mother by the appellant, she would be unable to get up in the morning. The statement of PW-2 being natural inspires confidence. The said witness also had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case and shield the real culprit. 17. PW-3 Ramvilas has corroborated the statements of PW-1 Savitri Bai and PW-2 Rachita. The said witness is aged about 8 years and has withstood the test of cross-examination. 18. As per the post-mortem examination report Exhibit-P.10, cause of death of the deceased was 'asphyxia caused by strangulation'. Hence, the ocular version disclosed by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 is duly corroborated by medical evidence. 19. Appellant was also living in the same house, where the murder of Naurangbai had taken place due to strangulation. It was for the appellant to have explained as to under what circumstances Naurangbai had died an un-natural death/murdered in the house, where he was having in a live-in relationship with her. 20. There is also no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that it could be said to be a case of circumstantial evidence. Rather, it is a case which rests on eyewitness account. The eye-witnesses, PW-1 Savitri Bai, PW-2 Rachita and PW-3 Ramvilas examined by the prosecution, have duly established the prosecution case. Eye-witnesses have also deposed that the appellant had come under the influence of liquor and fought with their mother before strangulating her. 21. Rather, it is a case which rests on eyewitness account. The eye-witnesses, PW-1 Savitri Bai, PW-2 Rachita and PW-3 Ramvilas examined by the prosecution, have duly established the prosecution case. Eye-witnesses have also deposed that the appellant had come under the influence of liquor and fought with their mother before strangulating her. 21. Hence, the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the appellant fail to advance the case of the appellant as the same are not applicable with the facts of the present case. 22. Thus, in the present case, learned trial Court has rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC as the prosecution had been successful in proving its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 23. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment/order dated 13.10.2016 passed by the trial Court are upheld.