Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1994 (RAJ)

Raghunath v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-18

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
ORDER : 1. Appellants had faced the trial in FIR No. 62 dated 20.3.2012 registered at Police Station Bhalta, District Jhalawar under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Ramchandra father of the deceased Kanhiram. As per the FIR, Kanhiram had left the house of the complainant at about 8 p.m. under the influence of liquor. On the next day, in the evening complainant was told by his wife that Kanhiram had been murdered and his dead body had been thrown in the well. When he reached the spot, he found that police officials were taking out the dead body of Kanhiram from the well. There were injuries on the head, neck, hands and feet of the deceased. When he made an inquiry from the wife of the deceased, she told him that day before, at about 9-10 p.m. Kanhiram had taken drinks with Jagannath, Ramesh and Raghunath. They stayed together for about one hour and then Jagannath and Ramesh had left. Kanhiram went to drop Raghunath to his residence but had not returned thereafter. 2. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants. 3. Charges were framed against the appellants under Section 302, 302/34 and 201 IPC. Appellants did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 17 witnesses. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. 5. Trial court vide judgment/order dated 3.7.2013 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302, 302/34 and 201 IPC. Hence, present appeal by the appellants. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to complete the entire chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the appellants. Appellants had been falsely involved in this case. 7. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal. 8. Present case relates to murder of Kanhiram. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. 9. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brajendrasingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 1552 , as under:- "There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. 9. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brajendrasingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2012 SC 1552 , as under:- "There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e. the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and the only possibility that the accused has committed the crime. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the Court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The Court has to examine the complete chain of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial." 10. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial." 10. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 684 , as under:- "In the light of the above conspectus, we will now consider the effect of the aforesaid legislative changes on the authority and efficacy of the propositions laid down by this Court in Jagmohan's case. These propositions may be summed up as under: (i) The general legislative policy that underlies the structure of our criminal law, principally contained in the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, is to define an offence with sufficient clarity and to prescribe only the maximum punishment therefore, and to allow a very wide discretion to the Judge in the matter of fixing the degree of punishment. With the solitary exception of Section 303, the same policy permeates Section 302 and some other sections of the Penal Code, where me maximum punishment is the death penalty. (ii)(a) No exhaustive enumeration of aggravating or mitigating circumstances which should be considered when sentencing an offender, is possible. "The infinite variety of cases and facets to each case would make general standards either meaningless 'boiler plate' or a statement of the obvious that no Jury (Judge) would need." (Referred to Mc-Gantha v. California (1971) 402 U.S. 183 (b) The impossibility of laying down standards is at the very core of the criminal law as administered in India which invests the Judges with a very wide discretion in the matter of fixing the degree of punishment. (iii) The view taken by the plurality in Furman v. Georgia decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, to the effect, that a law which gives uncontrolled and un-guided discretion to the Jury (or the Judge) to choose arbitrarily between a sentence of death and imprisonment for a capital offence, violates the Eighth Amendment, is not applicable in India. We do not have in out Constitution any provision like the Eighth Amendment, nor are we at liberty to apply the test of reasonableness with the freedom with which the Judges of the Supreme Court of America are accustomed to apply "the due process" clause. We do not have in out Constitution any provision like the Eighth Amendment, nor are we at liberty to apply the test of reasonableness with the freedom with which the Judges of the Supreme Court of America are accustomed to apply "the due process" clause. There are grave doubts about the expediency of transplanting western experience in our country. Social conditions are different and so also the general intellectual level. Arguments which would be valid in respect of one area of the world may not hold good in respect of another area. (iv)(a) This discretion in the matter of sentence is to be exercised by the Judge judicially, after balancing all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the crime. (b) The discretion is liable to be corrected by superior courts. The exercise of judicial discretion on well-recognized principles is, in the final analysis, the safest possible safeguard for the accused. In view of the above, it will be impossible to say that there would be at all any discrimination, since crime as crime may appear to be superficially the same but the facts and circumstances of a crime are widely different Thus considered, the provision in Section 302, Penal Code is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground that it confers on the Judges an un-guided and uncontrolled discretion in the matter of awarding capital punishment or imprisonment for life. (v)(a) Relevant facto and circumstances Impinging on the nature and circumstances of the crime can be brought before the Court at the pre-conviction stage, notwithstanding the fact that no formal procedure for producing evidence regarding such facto and circumstances had been specifically provided. When counsel addresses the Court with regard to the character and standing of the accused, they are duly considered by the Court unless there is something in the evidence itself which belies him or the Public Prosecutor challenges the facts. (b) It is to be emphasized that in exercising its discretion to choose either of the two alternative sentences provided in Section 302, Penal Code, "the Court is principally concerned with the facts and circumstances Whether aggravating or mitigating, which are connected with the particular crime under inquiry. (b) It is to be emphasized that in exercising its discretion to choose either of the two alternative sentences provided in Section 302, Penal Code, "the Court is principally concerned with the facts and circumstances Whether aggravating or mitigating, which are connected with the particular crime under inquiry. All such facts and circumstances are capable of being proved in accordance With the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act in a trial regulated by the Cr.P.C. The trial does not come to an end until all the relevant facts are proved and the counsel on both sides have an opportunity to address the Court. The only thing that remains is for the Judge to decide on the guilt and punishment and that is what Sections 306(2) and 309(2), Cr.P.C. purport to provide for. These provisions are part of the procedure established by law and unless it is shown that they are invalid for any other reasons they must be regarded as valid. No reasons are offered to show that they are constitutionally invalid and hence the death sentence imposed after trial in accordance with the procedure established by law is not tin-constitutional under Article 21." 11. Let us examine the prosecution evidence with a view to come to a conclusion as to whether prosecution had been successful in completing chain of circumstances leading towards guilt of the appellants. 12. So far as complainant is concerned, he appeared in the witness box as P.W. 4 and deposed as per the contents of the FIR. 13. P.W. 12 Navrang Bai has deposed that her husband had been murdered about three months back. She was residing with her husband in the Village. Raghunath Meghwal, Ramesh and Jagannath had taken liquor with her husband. Jagannath and Ramesh had left early. Raghunath Meghwal took her husband with him. It was about 8-9 p.m., at that time. However, her husband did not return home and his dead body was recovered from the well. Her husband did not have any enmity with the persons with whom, he had taken liquor. Her husband had enmity from the persons in his brotherhood. However, the said witness has not alleged any motive against the appellants to have committed the murder of the deceased. 14. So far as P.W. 2 Raghunath is concerned, he has deposed that he was working as a Mason. Her husband had enmity from the persons in his brotherhood. However, the said witness has not alleged any motive against the appellants to have committed the murder of the deceased. 14. So far as P.W. 2 Raghunath is concerned, he has deposed that he was working as a Mason. Kanhiram was taking liquor on the day of incident and he had also offered him liquor but he had refused to take liquor with him. Kanhiram had told him that he would drop him to his house. Thereafter Kanhiram had returned home. Later, he came to know that Kanhiram had been murdered. He did not know as to how Kanhiram had died. 15. P.W. 7 Jagannath deposed that on the day of incident Raghunath and Kanhiram were taking liquor. They asked him to have liquor with them but he had declined and had gone home. 16. Ramesh while appearing in the witness box as P.W. 16 has deposed that Kanhiram had died. He had not seen Kanhiram taking liquor. On the day of incident, he was returning home from his fields and Kanhiram was present in his house. Raghunath Meghwal and Jagannath were sitting with Kanhiram. He also sat with them and then he left with Jagannath while Raghunath Meghwal was still sitting with Kanhiram. Kanhiram did not have any enmity with anyone. 17. Thus, as per the prosecution story, deceased was having liquor with Raghunath Meghwal P.W. 2, Jagannath P.W. 7 and Ramesh P.W. 16, on 19.3.2012 at about 9/10 p.m. The said witnesses have not deposed anything against the appellants involving them in the crime. Even the wife of the deceased has also not levelled any allegation against the appellants. P.W. 4 Father of the deceased has also not levelled any allegation against the appellants. Nobody had seen the deceased in the company of the appellants before his death. Apart from the recoveries of the weapons and one blood stained shirt of the deceased from appellant Karan Singh, there is no other circumstance connecting the appellants with the crime. 18. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence motive gains significance. Prosecution had failed to bring on record any motive which would have induced the appellants to commit murder of the deceased. 18. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence motive gains significance. Prosecution had failed to bring on record any motive which would have induced the appellants to commit murder of the deceased. It would not be a safe to base the conviction of the appellants, merely on the basis of the recoveries effected during investigation, from them without any other circumstance connecting them with the crime-in-question. 19. Thus, in the present case, prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances bringing home the guilt of the accused. Rather, from the evidence on record, the possibility that somebody else might have committed the crime cannot be ruled out. Hence, appellants are liable to be granted benefit of doubt and are entitled for acquittal. 20. It is settled proposition of law that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt by leading convincing and cogent evidence, moreso, in a case resting on circumstantial evidence. However, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 21. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment/order dated 3.7.2013 passed by the trial Court are set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Appellant No. 1 Raghunath and appellant No. 2 Karan Singh who are in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 22. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant No. 1 Raghunath S/o. Sh. Dhulilal and appellant No. 2 Karan Singh S/o. Sh. Raghunath are directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar(Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.