Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2607 (RAJ)

Ajay Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2019-09-26

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Appellant Ajay Singh has filed the present appeal challenging his conviction and sentence ordered by the trial court vide judgment/order dated 17.12.2014/18.12.2014 under Section 302 and 201 IPC. 2. The prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of report Exhibit-P/3 lodged by complainant Rewati Prasad on 2.6.2012 alleging that his daughter Mamta was missing. A perusal of the said report reveals that it was the case of the complainant that his daughter Mamta was married to appellant Ajay Singh on 21.5.2008. Mamta was sent to her matrimonial home in the year 2010. Mamta lived in her matrimonial home only for few days, as she was being harassed there on account of demand of dowry. Due to this reason, the complainant had brought Mamta to his house in January, 2012. On 1.6.2012, at about 9:30/10:00 AM, they received a phone call from the appellant and Mamta talked to the appellant on phone. Thereafter, Mamta told them that the appellant had called her in front of Bina Narayan Gate, as he wanted to talk to her. Mamta left the house at about 10:30 AM but had not returned thereafter. They had searched for Mamta everywhere but they could not locate her. 3. Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint Exhibit-P/5 on 21.7.2012 and on the basis of the same, a formal FIR ExhibitP/4 bearing No.625/2012 was registered on 25.7.2012 at Police Station Mathuragate, Bharatpur under Sections 363, 366, 372, 373 and 120B IPC on the directions of the Magistrate. 4. After completion of the investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. 5. Charges were framed against the appellant by the trial court under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 6. Appellant did not plead guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 18 witnesses during trial. The appellant, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. after the close of the prosecution evidence, prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. His in-law's family were not sending his wife to the matrimonial home and due to this reason, they were not happy with him. On 1.6.2012, he was present in Uchhain and had not made any phone call to Mamta. 8. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 9. His in-law's family were not sending his wife to the matrimonial home and due to this reason, they were not happy with him. On 1.6.2012, he was present in Uchhain and had not made any phone call to Mamta. 8. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The witnesses who had allegedly seen the appellant with the deceased had not supported the prosecution case during the trial. The complainant party was not happy with the appellant and due to this reason, they have falsely involved the appellant in this case. There was no occasion for the appellant to have harassed his wife on account of demand of dowry, especially when the sister of the deceased is married to elder brother of the appellant and is residing happily in her matrimonial home. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the recovery of the skeleton at the instance of the appellant has been falsely foisted on him. 10. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the appeal. 11. The present case relates to murder of Mamta. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. 12. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, (1990) AIR SC 79 ), as under:- "10. .. This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests : (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra )." 13. (See Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra )." 13. It has also 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. The complainant while appearing in the witness box as P.W.3 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. The complainant has specifically stated that on 1.6.2012 at about 9:30 AM they had received phone call from the appellant Ajay Singh. The complainant while appearing in the witness box as P.W.3 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. The complainant has specifically stated that on 1.6.2012 at about 9:30 AM they had received phone call from the appellant Ajay Singh. He had talked to the appellant Ajay Singh on phone. Ajay Singh had asked that he wanted to talk to Mamta. Then Mamta had talked to Ajay Singh on phone and thereafter, Mamta had left the house informing his wife that she was going to meet the appellant near Bina Narayan Gate and had not returned home thereafter. 15. Bhagwan Dei P.W.7 mother of the deceased has corroborated the statement of the Rewati Prasad P.W.3. 16. Madhu P.W.5 has deposed that Mamta was her younger sister and was married to the appellant. She (witness) was married to Satya Prakash. Satya Prakash and Ajay Singh were residents of Uchhain. Ajay Singh was her brother-in-law and did not talk to Mamta. In June, 2012, she was present in her matrimonial home. On 1.6.2012, her sister Mamta was residing in her parental house. On that day, the appellant had gone to Bharatpur to bring Ghee at 9:00 AM alongwith Hemant and he returned to Uchhain from Bharatpur at about 12:00 noon. 17. Devendra Bhardwaj P.W.1 and Neeraj Sharma P.W.2 have not supported the prosecution case during the trial. 18. Exhibit-P/21 is the disclosure statement suffered by the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A perusal of the same reveals that the appellant had offered to disclose the place where he had committed the murder of his wife Mamta on 1.6.2012. Exhibit-P/9 is the memo vide which skeleton was recovered from the disclosed place by the appellant and same was taken in possession. Exhibit-P/9 and Exhibit-P/21 have been proved by Gajendra Singh P.W.18. 19. Exhibit-P/14 is the report of Forensic Science Laboratory and a perusal of the same reveals that DNA test, performed on the exhibits provided, was sufficient to conclude that the source of the Exhibit-P/3 (Skull of the deceased) was biological daughter of Bhagwan Dei and Rewati Prasad. As per the report, the skull of the deceased matched with DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of Bhagwan Dei and Rewati Prasad. 20. As per the report, the skull of the deceased matched with DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of Bhagwan Dei and Rewati Prasad. 20. Thus, in the present case, the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime in question are :- (i) The appellant had called his wife Mamta near Bina Narayan Gate after making phone call to her. In this regard, Rewati Prasad P.W.3 father of the deceased and Bhagwan Dei P.W.7 have deposed that Mamta had gone to meet the appellant near Bina Narayan Gate after she was called on phone by the appellant. On 1.6.2012, Mamta was residing in her parental home. (ii) Madhu P.W.5, who is married to elder brother of the appellant and is residing in her matrimonial home has stated that on 1.6.2012, the appellant had gone to Bharatpur alongwith Hemant at about 9:00 AM and had returned to Uchhain at about 12 noon. The statement of Madhu P.W.5 is relevant as her presence in her matrimonial home is natural and she was in a position to know about the whereabouts of the appellant. The statement of Madhu P.W.5 corroborates the version of the complainant and Bhagwan Dei P.W.7 to the effect that the appellant had called Mamta to Bina Narayan Gate, Bharatpur at about 9:30 AM and Mamta had left the house at about 10:30 AM. (iii) After Mamta had left her parental house to meet the appellant on 1.6.2012, she had not returned home. (iv) The skeleton of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the appellant from the Ghana Forest in Bharatpur on the basis of his disclosure statement Exhibit-P/21. (v) The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory establishes that the skeleton which was recovered at the instance of the appellant from the forest, belonged to biological daughter of the complainant Rewati Prasad and his wife Bhagwan Dei. (vi) Motive can be inferred in the present case, as the appellant had the reason to eliminate the deceased because the appellant and the deceased were not residing together after their marriage. Mamta was residing in her parental home. Thus, this implies that the relations between the appellant and the deceased were not cordial and he had reason to get rid of his wife. 21. Mamta was residing in her parental home. Thus, this implies that the relations between the appellant and the deceased were not cordial and he had reason to get rid of his wife. 21. Although, in the present case the witnesses who had last seen the appellant with the deceased have not supported the prosecution case during the trial, but the circumstances enumerated above lead to irresistible conclusion towards guilt of the appellant and negate the possibility of innocence of the appellant or someone else having committed the crime. 22. Thus, after examining the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in completing the chain of the circumstances leading towards the guilt of the appellant and negating his innocence. 23. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial court had, thus, rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 24. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment/order dated 17.12.2014/18.12.2014 passed by the Trial Court are upheld.