Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 844 (RAJ)

State v. Mikku

2022-03-10

REKHA BORANA, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The instant application under Section 378(iii) and Sub-clause (i) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State of Rajasthan seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 18.05.2019 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No. 12/2012 whereby, the respondents were acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act (against the accused Mikku @ Mukesh). 2. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment. 3. The case of the prosecution commenced with the FIR (Ex.P/13) lodged by Kamal Kishore Mali, the complainant at the Police Station Sujangarh on 16.03.2012 alleging inter alia that his brother Mahesh received a call on 16.03.2012 at about 3:30 in the afternoon. After attending the call, Mahesh took key of the motorcycle from the informant and went away to some place on the motorcycle. Half an hour later, Santosh Soni, friend of Mahesh made a call on his mobile phone on which, some unknown person answered saying that Mahesh was not there. Later on, they came to know the Mahesh has been stabbed to death and the dead body had been found in a Nohra near the Mega Highway. The police picked up the dead body of Mahesh from the Nohra and deposited the same in the hospital mortuary. It was alleged that the caller who made the call to Mahesh, had killed him by deceit. Suspicion was cast on Mikku Swami @ Mukesh Swami S/o Shri Jagdish Swami, Sunil Tak @ Bholu S/o Madanlal Tak, Sunil Bhargav S/o Shri Jagdish, Ajay Jat, Sunil Bijarnia, Banwari Batesar etc with an allegation that they were bearing animosity with Mahesh and they might have killed him or might have arranged for his murder. After registration of the FIR, the accused respondents were arrested and certain recoveries (to be specific blood stained clothes etc of the accused persons) were effected at their instance. The dead body of Shri Mahesh was subjected to autopsy and a postmortem report (Ex.P/39) was received. The weapons of offence were recovered from the place of incident. Upon conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act (against the accused Mikku @ Mukesh). The weapons of offence were recovered from the place of incident. Upon conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act (against the accused Mikku @ Mukesh). The prosecution examined as 24 witnesses and exhibited 84 documents to prove its case. No direct evidence was adduced before the trial court to bring home the charges and the prosecution case was purely based on circumstantial evidence. The witnesses of circumstance of last seen did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. 4. The medical jurist Dr. Dilip Soni (PW.19) stated that he did not hand over the clothes of the victim to the police and thus, there is no plausible evidence on record of the case to satisfy the Court as to how the blood group of the deceased could be established. The prosecution also placed reliance on certain call details in an endeavour to prove its case as against the accused. However, the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was not proved by the prosecution. The only semblance of evidence which thus, remained with the prosecution so as to bring home the charges was the FSL report (Ex.P/66). However, as has been noted above, the prosecution could not prove the factum of recovery of allegedly blood stained clothes of the deceased by reliable evidence. The trial court concluded this finding against the prosecution vide discussion made at page 72 of the impugned judgment. Since the factum of recovery of the clothes of the deceased was not proved by reliable evidence, apparently, the exercise undertaken by the prosecution to match the blood stains found on the clothes recovered at the instance of the accused persons with the blood group of the deceased was nothing short of an exercise in futility. In addition thereto, the trial court at Page Nos. 79 & 80 (Point Nos. 6 & 7) of the impugned judgment took note of the fact that the prosecution did not lead proper evidence to prove the link evidence regarding the samples of incriminating articles having remained intact till they reached the FSL. Hence, the FSL report (Ex.P/66) was rightly discarded by the trial court as being an unreliable document. 5. 6 & 7) of the impugned judgment took note of the fact that the prosecution did not lead proper evidence to prove the link evidence regarding the samples of incriminating articles having remained intact till they reached the FSL. Hence, the FSL report (Ex.P/66) was rightly discarded by the trial court as being an unreliable document. 5. The trial court was absolutely justified in discarding all links in the chain of circumstantial evidence which were proposed by the prosecution to prove the charges against the accused persons. 6. Law is well settled by catena of Supreme Court judgments that in a case of murder based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the whole chain of circumstances pointing only and only to the guilt of the accused;- inconsistent with any suggestion of his/their innocence/involvement of any other person in the offence. Even if a single link from the chain of circumstances is found missing, then the chain will be snapped with a consequence of the court being compelled to discard the entire prosecution case. In the case at hand, manifestly, the prosecution could not prove even a single of the so-called incriminating circumstances so as to bring home the charges against the accused respondents. The impugned judgment dated 18.05.2019 has been passed after thorough and apropos appreciation of evidence available on record and the findings recorded therein are unimpeachable. Hence, the same does not warrant any interference. 7. As a consequence, there is no reason so as to grant leave to the State of Rajasthan for filing an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 18.05.2019 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No. 12/2012. Consequently, the leave to appeal application fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merit.