Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2309 (RAJ)

Guddu Circit @ Abdul Rafiq v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-27

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment/order dated 30.09.2015, whereby, he was convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). 2. On 10.10.2012, report No.463 was entered in the Rojnamcha register Exhibit-P-28 at 9.00 a.m. that information had been received from an unknown person on telephone that Guddu @ Circit @ Abdul Rafiq was living on rent in the house of Jakir Wakil near Saiyad Shah Baba Ki Mazar. Foul smell was coming from the room. The room of Guddu @ Circit @ Abdul Rafiq was locked. Guddu @ Circit @ Abdul Rafiq was moving here and there for the last three days. His wife had not been seen for the last 3-4 days. When information was sought from the person who had made the phone-call, he disconnected the phone. The information appeared to be correct. 3. On 10.10.2012 at about 11.00 a.m., complainant-Jitendra Kumar lodged report Exhibit-P-11 stating that his father was married to Pushpa Devi about forty years back. Out of the said wedlock, two sons were born, i.e. complainant and Mahesh. One and a half years back, Guddu @ Circit @ Abdul Rafiq used to visit his mother Pushpa Devi. About a year back, his mother had performed marriage with Guddu @ Circit @ Abdul Rafiq and had started residing with him near Saiyad Shah Baba Ki Mazar on rent. Complainant and his brother continued residing with their father. Complainant and his brother had gone to meet their mother about a month/one and a half months back and their mother had told them that Guddu @ Circit @ Abdul Rafiq used to beat her sometimes and had threatened to kill her. He had met his mother few days prior to the incident and she had told him that Guddu @ Circit @ Abdul Rafiq could kill her any time. He had received information from police station Makbara that the dead body of his mother was lying in the rented accommodation of Guddu @ Circit @ Abdul Rafiq. On receiving the said information, he reached the spot along with his brother. The dead body of his mother was lying in a pool of blood in the house. His mother had been murdered by Guddu @ Circit @ Abdul Rafiq. On receiving the said information, he reached the spot along with his brother. The dead body of his mother was lying in a pool of blood in the house. His mother had been murdered by Guddu @ Circit @ Abdul Rafiq. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR No.109 dated 10.10.2012 was registered at Police Station Makbara, District Kota City under Section 302 IPC. 4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. 5. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. 6. Appellant did not plead guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined fifteen witnesses, during trial. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. He was not staying with the deceased in the room-in-question because he as well as the deceased were being threatened by the sons of the deceased. Due to this reason, he was residing with his parents at Ramganj Mandi on rent. 8. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 9. Trial court vide the impugned judgment/order dated 30.09.2015 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. Appellant was not residing in the house where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. The witnesses, who were residing in the neighbourhood of the place of incident had not supported the prosecution case, during trial. 11. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Weapons used at the time of offence were recovered at the instance of the appellant and as per the Forensic Science Laboratory report, the said weapons were stained with the blood of the deceased. Appellant had got married to the deceased. Documents in this regard have been duly proved on record. 12. Present case relates to murder of Pushpa @ Reshma. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. 13. Appellant had got married to the deceased. Documents in this regard have been duly proved on record. 12. Present case relates to murder of Pushpa @ Reshma. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. 13. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brajendrasingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) AIR 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." 14. Complainant-Jitendra Kumar while appearing in the witness box as PW-4 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. Complainant-Jitendra Kumar while appearing in the witness box as PW-4 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. 15. Pw-14 Doctor Rakesh Sharma had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Pushpa @ Reshma on 10.10.2012. He proved the post-mortem examination report ExhibitP-26. A perusal of Exhibit-P-26 reveals that the deceased had suffered four injuries and cause of death of the deceased was on account of head injury. 16. Pw-15 Manjoor Ahmed deposed that on 10.10.2012, he was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector at Police Station Makbara, District Kota. At 9.00 a.m., an information was received in the Police Station that in the house of Jakir Wakil near Saiyad Shah Baba Ki Mazar, from the room of Guddu @ Circit @ Abdul Rafiq, foul smell was emitting and wife of Guddu @ Circit @ Abdul Rafiq had not been seen for 3-4 days. Report in this regard was entered in the Rojnamcha. Thereafter, he along with other police officials reached the spot. At the spot, Jitendra Kumar, son of the deceased, lodged report Exhibit-P-11 and on the basis of the same, formal FIR was registered. Place of incident was got photographed. Panchnama of the dead body of deceased Pushpa @ Reshma Exhibit-P-12 was prepared. Site plan Exhibit-P-10 of the spot was prepared. Forensic Science Laboratory team reached the spot. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and was taken in possession. Plain earth was also lifted from the spot and was taken in possession. Dead body was sent for postmortem examination. 17. Pw-13 Rewat Singh deposed that on 10.10.2012, he arrested the accused. During interrogation, appellant suffered a disclosure statement Exhibit-P-19 stating that he could get the Scissors and Hammer used in the commission of murder of Pushpa @ Reshma recovered. On the basis of the disclosure statement of the appellant, blood stained Scissors and Hammer were recovered from the house of the parents of the appellant and the same were taken in possession. During interrogation, appellant voluntarily produced the marriage certificate and his affidavit as well as affidavit of Pushpa @ Reshma from the box lying in the house and the same were taken in possession. 18. Exhibit-P-25 is the report of Forensic Science Laboratory. A perusal of the same reveals that the Hammer and Scissors recovered at the instance of the appellant were stained with human blood of group 'A'. 18. Exhibit-P-25 is the report of Forensic Science Laboratory. A perusal of the same reveals that the Hammer and Scissors recovered at the instance of the appellant were stained with human blood of group 'A'. The blood which was recovered from the spot as well as the blood stains on the Salwar of the deceased and the bedsheet which was recovered from the spot where the dead body was lying, were also stained with human blood of group 'A'. 19. Exhibit-P-20 is the affidavit of the appellant which bears his photograph as well as the photograph of Pushpa @ Rehsma. As per the said affidavit, it had been stated by the appellant that he was in love with Reshma, who was earlier known as Pushpa Bai and Reshma had got her religion changed and was residing with him. He further stated in the affidavit that he will keep Reshma as his wife. In the affidavit, the address of the appellant has been mentioned as resident of Saiyad Wale Baba, Ghantaghar Police Chowki, Kota (Raj.). 20. Exhibit-P-21 is the affidavit of Pushpa Bai, wherein, she had stated that she was in love with the appellant and was residing with him as his wife. She has further stated that she had changed her religion with a view to perform marriage with the appellant. The said affidavit also bears the photograph of the appellant as well as the deceased. 21. Thus, from the affidavits Exhibit-P-20 and Exhibit-P-21, it is established that the appellant and the deceased were residing together as husband and wife. Deceased had changed her religion with a view to perform marriage with the appellant. Information was also received by the Police Station and entry was made in the Rojnamcha register vide Exhibit-P-28 to the effect that foul smell was emitting with the room which had been taken on rent by the appellant and the wife of the appellant had not been seen for 3-4 days. Thereafter, police officials reached the spot and dead body of Pushpa @ Reshma was recovered. Jitendra Kumar, son of the deceased also reached the spot and lodged the report stating that his mother had started living with the appellant for the last one year as his wife after performing marriage with him. Thereafter, police officials reached the spot and dead body of Pushpa @ Reshma was recovered. Jitendra Kumar, son of the deceased also reached the spot and lodged the report stating that his mother had started living with the appellant for the last one year as his wife after performing marriage with him. Appellant has also not specifically denied his relationship with the deceased when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Rather, appellant has taken up the plea that he was residing with his parents because he, as well as the deceased, were being threatened by the sons of the deceased. This shows that appellant and the deceased were in a relationship. Since, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the room which had been taken on rent by the appellant, it was for the appellant to have explained as to under what circumstances, his wife had died an unnatural death i.e., on account of injuries suffered by her. Further on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by the appellant, weapons of offence were recovered. Blood stained Scissors and Hammer were recovered at the instance of the appellant from the house of his parents. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory report, the Scissors and Hammer recovered at the instance of the appellant were stained with human blood of group 'A'. As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, blood found on the Salwar of the deceased was of group 'A'. Thus, it is evident that the Scissors and Hammer recovered at the instance of the appellant had been used at the time of commission of murder of deceased Pushpa @ Reshma. 22. Thus, the prosecution had been able to complete the chain of circumstances leading towards the guilt of the appellant and negates the possibility of his innocence or the possibility that somebody else might have committed the crime. 23. Learned trial court had, thus, rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case against the appellant and had rightly ordered his conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC. No ground for interference is made out. 24. Dismissed.