Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Nizam Versus State of Rajasthan

2015 (9) TMI 1449 - SUPREME COURT

Guilty of murder - whether the courts below were right in invoking the “last seen theory ” - conviction of the accused-appellants under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on each of them with a fine of ₹ 2,000/- with default clause and also two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹ 500/- with default clause respectively - Held that:- In view of the time gap between Manoj left in the truck and the recovery of the body and also the place and circu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

from other circumstances and evidence adduced by the prosecution. From the facts and evidence, we find no other corroborative piece of evidence corroborating the last seen theory. - In case of circumstantial evidence, court has to examine the entire evidence in its entirety and ensure that the only inference that can be drawn from the evidence is the guilt of the accused. In the case at hand, neither the weapon of murder nor the money allegedly looted by the appellants or any other material .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he prosecution. For establishing the guilt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be firmly established and the chain of circumstances must be completed from the facts. The chain of circumstantial evidence cannot be said to be concluded in any manner sought to be urged by the prosecution. - Normally, this Court will not interfere in exercise of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. But .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e guilt of the appellants and no other inference. If more than one inferences can be drawn, then the accused must have the benefit of doubt. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied the conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained and the appeal ought to be allowed. - CRL.A. 413 OF 2007 - Dated:- 4-9-2015 - Dipak Misra, R. Banumathi, JJ. JUDGMENT This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment dated 01.07.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan Jaipur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ongwith his first driver Raj Kumar (PW-2) and second driver Ram Parkash (PW-1) and from Barar they loaded the truck with pipes for destination to Ghaziabad on 23.01.2001. Accused-appellants Nizam and Shafique who were the driver and cleaner respectively on the truck No.DL-1GA-5943 also loaded their truck with pipes from the same company on the same day at Barar and started for Ghaziabad alongwith truck No.MP-07-2627. During this period drivers and cleaners of both the trucks developed acquaintan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

01. 3. Dead body of deceased-Manoj was found on 26.01.2001 under suspicious circumstances in a field near village Maniya. On 26.01.2001 at about 3.00 O clock, one Koke Singh (PW-13) went to collect the fodder and found a dead body lying in the field and the same was informed to Shahjad Khan (PW-4). Based on the written information by Shahjad Khan (PW-4), case was registered in FIR No.16/2001 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC on 26.01.2001 at Thana-Maniya, District Dholpur. Gullu Khan(PW-16)- Invest .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 27.01.2001 and the truck No.DL-1GA-5943 was recovered. After due investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellants-accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 4. To bring home the guilt of the accused-appellants, prosecution has examined twenty one witnesses. Incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and the accused denied all of them and accused stated that Manoj had never travelled in their truck DL-1GA-5943. Additional Session .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, appellants-accused preferred appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan, which vide impugned judgment dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the conviction of the accused-appellants and also respective sentence of imprisonment and fine amount imposed on each of them. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the last seen theory is not applicable to the instant case as there were serious contradictions as to the date and ti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

State contended that the deceased having huge amount of money travelled in the company of the accused-appellants and when the prosecution has established that the deceased-Manoj was last seen alive in the company of the accused- appellants, it was for the accused to explain as to what happened to the deceased and in the absence of any explanation from the accused and based on the circumstantial evidence courts below rightly convicted the appellants and the impugned judgment warrants no interfere .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused totally inconsistent with his evidence. 9. The principle of circumstantial evidence has been reiterated by this Court in a plethora of cases. In Bodhraj @ Bodha And Ors. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir,(2002) 8 SCC 45, wherein this court quoted number of judgments and held as under:- 10. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circums .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of M.P., 1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 560) The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621 it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. 10. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681, this court held as under: 12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence. The same principles were reiterated in Sunil Clifford Daniel vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 11 SCC 205, Sampath Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri (2012) 4 SCC 124 and Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 13 SCC 621 and a number of other decisions. 11. By perusal of the testimonies of PWs 1, 2 and 3, it is seen that PW1-Ram Parkash and PW2-Raj Kumar along with deceased cleaner Manoj got their .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g with accused Nizam and Shafique in the other truck DL-1GA-5943. PWs 1 and 2 further stated that after being released from the police station, they went to Gwalior and enquired about Manoj from their owner Rajnish Kant (PW-3) who had no knowledge about Manoj. In the meanwhile, based on the bilty and the receipt recovered from the pocket of the trouser of deceased-Manoj, Maniya police contacted PW-3-owner of the truck and on being so contacted, PWs 1 to 3 went to Maniya Police Station and identi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

murder of Manoj for the amount which Manoj was carrying. But neither the amount of ₹ 20,000/- nor any part of it was recovered from the appellants. If the prosecution is able to prove its case on motive, it will be a corroborative piece of evidence lending assurance to the prosecution case. But even if the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive, that will not be a ground to throw away the prosecution case. Absence of proof of motive only demands careful scrutiny and deeper analy .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

IPC was registered against him. Raj Kumar was produced before the Court and court imposed fine of ₹ 1,000/- on him. This fact was also verified from PW-16-investigating officer during his cross-examination. 14. Courts below convicted the appellants on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that deceased was last seen alive with the appellants on 23.01.2001. Undoubtedly, last seen theory is an important link in the chain of circumstances that would point towards the guilt of the accused with some cert .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ting the principle of last seen alive in State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254, this Court held as under:- 23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which complet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-Manoj was recovered on 26.01.2001. The prosecution has contended the accused persons were last seen with the deceased but the accused have not offered any plausible, cogent explanation as to what has happened to Manoj. Be it noted, that only if the prosecution has succeeded in proving the facts by definite evidence that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused, a reasonable inference could be drawn against the accused and then only onus can be shifted on the accused under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e needs to be noted. From the statement made by Shahzad Khan (PW-4) the internal organ (penis) of the deceased was tied with rope and blood was oozing out from his nostrils. Maniya village, the place where the body of Manoj was recovered is alleged to be a notable place for prostitution where people from different areas come for enjoyment. 18. In view of the time gap between Manoj left in the truck and the recovery of the body and also the place and circumstances in which the body was recovered, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uced by the prosecution. From the facts and evidence, we find no other corroborative piece of evidence corroborating the last seen theory. 19. In case of circumstantial evidence, court has to examine the entire evidence in its entirety and ensure that the only inference that can be drawn from the evidence is the guilt of the accused. In the case at hand, neither the weapon of murder nor the money allegedly looted by the appellants or any other material was recovered from the possession of the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version