Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 798 (RAJ)

Narayan v. State of Rajasthan

2024-05-15

DINESH MEHTA, RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Rajendra Prakash Soni, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.05.1996 rendered by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nimbaheda in Sessions Case No. 152/1994 whereby, the appellant was held guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced for life imprisonment and fine with default clause. 2. The accused was charged and tried for allegedly committing murder of Bhana Gurjar on 21.09.1994 by causing grievous hurt to him on vital parts of his body. 3. The facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the present appeal against conviction, briefly stated, are that on 21.09.1994, a report written by Moti (PW-4) was submitted by Udailal (PW-3) to the Police Station Bhadsora stating, inter alia, that body of Bhana Gurjar was lying on the road and Police was requested to come to the place of occurrence and take required action. The SHO of Police Station Bhadsora, District Chittorgarh reached the place of occurrence and undertook the required proceedings. The postmortem of deceased Bhana Gurjar was conducted. 4. A formal FIR was registered, investigation was commenced and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused Narayan. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put to trial and stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. To bring home the guilt of the appellant, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and also got exhibited 14 different documents and various articles during the trial. Upon being confronted with the allegations set out in the evidence of the prosecution, the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances and evidence put to him and claimed that he had been falsely implicated and is innocent. In defence, no oral evidence was produced by the appellant but as many as 4 different documents were exhibited in support of his defence. 6. The trial Court, while relying upon the circumstantial evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 7. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment. We have thoroughly re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 8. 6. The trial Court, while relying upon the circumstantial evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 7. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment. We have thoroughly re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 8. The trial Court, after consideration of the entire evidence on record, convicted the appellant holding that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution inspires confidence and was sufficient to prove the charge levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 9. The trial Court went on to decide and hold that: “It is true that the name of the accused Narayan was not mentioned in the First Information Report; The argument of the defene appears to be acceptable that the extra-judicial confession made before witnesses Narayan and Kishan Singh cannot be accepted; Although, material witnesses Bhagwana and Shankerlal have been declared hostile yet there is strong circumstantial evidence on record against the accused Narayan; The defence of accused that scene of occurrence could not be considered established as no blood was found there, is not acceptable because it has been proved beyond doubt that the place of occurrence was the field of the accused Narayan; There was a peanut crop in the field of the accused Narayan and beyond that, was the field of the deceased Bhana wherein grass was growing. If the investigating officer did not found blood in the field, it does not raise any doubts because no other person could have murdered Bhana. Accused Narayan had enmity with Bhana over a land dispute. Bhana was completely blind and has no enmity with anyone else. There was no reason for the Police to fabricate a false case against the accused. The investigating officer Jagmohan did not show any bias in conducting the investigation. Even if the recovery of sticks and other items/articles is ignored and not given much importance even then, the other circumstantial evidence proves the crime of the accused Narayan beyond reasonable doubt. The investigating officer Jagmohan clearly deposed that when he inspected the scene of occurrence, the dead body was found dragged and lying on the road. Some of the peanut plants in the field were also found damaged and fallen on ground. The investigating officer Jagmohan clearly deposed that when he inspected the scene of occurrence, the dead body was found dragged and lying on the road. Some of the peanut plants in the field were also found damaged and fallen on ground. The accused Narayan had intentionally destroyed the evidence by removing the dead body from his field, dragging it and throwing it on the road. This circumstance goes against him. If the murder had been committed by someone else, there would have been no need to drag the dead body and throw it on the road. The motive is also proved. The accused Narayan murdered Bhana due to a land dispute. The argument of the defence that no blood was found on the way from scene of occurrence to the road, is also not tenable. Considering the state of the crime scene and the circumstantial evidence, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Bhana was murdered by accused Narayan and none other.” 10. The impugned judgment reveals that, in essence, the trial Court held that, had Bhana been murdered by someone else, the dead body would have been found in the field of Narayan itself and not on the road. Since, the field owner Narayan murdered the deceased Bhana, therefore, in order to destroy the evidence, he dragged the dead body from his field and threw it on the road. 11. This Court finds that merely on the basis of said probability coupled with the fact that the deceased was blind, the charge against the appellant has been considered proved by the trial Court. 12. Shri Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Harshwardhan Singh, appearing for the appellant has forcefully submitted that there being no direct evidence to prove the charges against the appellant and the alleged chain of circumstances brought by the prosecution being not complete, the conviction of the accused based upon such filmsy circumstances is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is further argued that there was no relevancy of the fact that the dead body of the deceased should have been in the field of accused Narayan or it had been dragged from the field and thrown on the road. It is further argued that there was no relevancy of the fact that the dead body of the deceased should have been in the field of accused Narayan or it had been dragged from the field and thrown on the road. According to him, no conclusion could be drawn on this basis and the said circumstance cannot be attributed to the accused in absence of any other cogent, credible and corroborating evidence. 13. It is further argued that there is no other material circumstantial evidence to show that the accused Narayan alone was the author of the alleged crime of murder of Bhana. The medical and chemical examination report also do not establish the involvement of the appellant in the alleged crime. In the light of the aforesaid contentions, it is argued that the conviction of the appellant is palpably illegal and liable to be set aside. 14. In refutation, Shri B.R. Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution has rightly been held to be reliable and trustworthy by the trial Court, therefore, the trial Court has been justified in convicting the appellant. The prosecution having been able to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts, the conviction and sentence of the appellant do not merit interference. 15. We have thoroughly examined the evidence produced by the prosecution and impugned judgment rendered by the trial Court. 16. Admittedly, there being no eye-witness to the occurrence, the entire prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled in law that the prosecution in order to establish its case on the basis of circumstantial evidence has to prove the circumstances fully established, from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn. Further, the circumstance so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. 17. The circumstances should be conclusive in nature and they must exclude every possible hypothesis, except the one to be proved. There must be a chain of evidence so complete, not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human possibility, the act must have been done by the accused only. There must be a chain of evidence so complete, not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human possibility, the act must have been done by the accused only. In order to furnish a basis for conviction, circumstantial evidence requires a high degree of probability, i.e., so sufficiently high that a prudent man considering all the facts, feels justified in holding that only the accused had committed the crime with which he charged. A mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for concrete circumstantial evidence. The circumstances from which inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly establish. 18. In view of the above principles, in the present case, the trial Court has held the appellant guilty on the basis of mere probabilities. The circumstances as brought forth by the prosecution, do not conclusively prove that the accused Narayan was responsible in any manner for the death of the deceased Bhana. Appellant Narayan cannot be convicted merely on the basis of the circumstance that the dead body of Bhana was found on the road, situated outside the field of the accused Narayan, only he must have murdered Bhana. From the evidence on record, we do not find that the chain of circumstances is so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that considering all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused Narayan only and none else. We, therefore, on the basis of circumstantial evidence produced, are unable to upheld the conviction of the appellant. 19. We are pained to point out the manner in which appreciation of evidence was made by the trial Court was not upto mark, when the case is based upon the circumstantial evidence. In absence of any cogent, credible and corroborating circumstantial evidence to conclusively prove the involvement of the accused in the death of Bhana, it would not be safe to base the conviction of the appellant solely on the basis of the only circumstance found proved by the trial Court. 20. Accordingly, we feel that it is a fit case where the benefit of reasonable doubt must be extended to the appellant. 21. 20. Accordingly, we feel that it is a fit case where the benefit of reasonable doubt must be extended to the appellant. 21. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 152/1994 titled as State of Rajasthan v. Narayan vide judgment and order dated 24.05.1996 rendered by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nimbaheda are set aside and the present criminal appeal is allowed. The appellant Narayan is acquitted of the charge framed against him. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged. 22. The appeal is allowed accordingly.