For a conviction in case of Murder under Section 302 of the IPC a case beyond the Shadow of Reasonable Doubt needs to be established – Rajasthan High Court
In the present criminal appeal, the prosecution approached the High Court stating that the trial court had erred in its judgment of acquitting the accused for a charge of murder of her husband. The High Court closely analysed the testimony and evidence placed on record and held that the Prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. The ratio was laid down by Justice Chandra Kumar Songara in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Meena W/o Shri Mohar Singh, D.B. [Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 551/2019]. The brief facts of the case are that the accused was married to Mohar Singh. The Respondent had faced trial in an FIR registered at Dholpur. After investigation, a challan was presented against the Respondent under Section 302 of IPC for the murder of her husband Mohar Singh. The Respondent did not plead guilty in the trial court. After the evidence and material were placed on record, the trial court acquitted the Respondent in the case of Murder. Hence the present Appeal. The Division bench of the High Court of Rajasthan adjudicated upon this matter after carefully analysing the testimony of fifteen witnesses and the other medical evidence placed on record. The Appellant argued that the trial court erred in its judgment as it failed to consider the two eyewitnesses of the incident i.e. PW-8 &amp; PW-9 (Bhuro and Varsha) daughters of the deceased. The Respondent on the other side argued that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses was different and proved that they were not present at the time of the incident. Further, as per the testimony the Murder was carried out by strangulating the deceased, but no marks of strangulation were found on the body of the deceased. The Prosecution further tried to prove illicit relationships of the Respondent with one Hakim Singh through the testimonies and made an attempt to prove that there was a conspiracy of Murder planned by two. The Testimony of the two daughters i.e. PW-8 and PW-9 was as that, “they have gone for sleep after dinner. On hearing voice of their father, they had got up and saw that their mother was strangulating their father. They informed their uncle about the incident in the morning. Their mother i.e Respondent had told them that their father had died on account of consumption of liquor. Versha in her cross-examination stated that everybody had seen a dead body in the morning and till then nobody knew as to how her father had died.” The High Court after due consideration was of the opinion that there were no strangulation marks on the body of the deceased and further keeping in view the material discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses, learned Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the Prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt hence High Court came to the conclusion to dismiss the case. Click here to read the judgement
 on 15 12 2020 at 10:02:24 PM HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPURD.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 551 2019State Of Rajasthan Through P.P. AppellantVersusMeena W o Late Shri Mohar Singh R o Seva Ka Pura PoliceStation Saipau Distt. Dholpur. RespondentFor Appellant(s) : Mr. N.S. Gurjar for the State.For Respondent(s): Mr. Sudhindra Kumawat Advocate through Video Conferencing.HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARAJudgment Order04 12 2020Respondent had faced trial in FIR No.227 2015 registered atpolice Station Saipau District Dholpur under Section 302 34 ofIndian Penal Code 1860[CRLLA 551 2019]Learned State counsel has submitted that the trial court haserred in ordering acquittal of the respondent. Case rests on eye witness account. Daughters of the deceased had seen therespondent committing murder of her husband. Learned trial courthas erred in disbelieving the statements of PW 8 Bhuro and PW 9Versha.Learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of therespondent has opposed the appeal and has submitted that fromthe complete reading of the statements of alleged eye witnessesPW 8 Bhuro and PW 9 Versha it was evident that they had notwitnessed the occurrence. There was no injury mark on the personof the deceased to corroborate the alleged eye witness account.Present case relates to murder of Mohar Singh husband ofthe respondent. It was the prosecution story that respondent washaving illicit relations with Hakim Singh and she had committedmurder of her husband alongwith her paramour. However afterinvestigation challan was presented against the respondent. To prove its case prosecution has placed reliance on thetestimonies of PW 8 Bhuro and PW 9 Versha. PW 8 Bhuro and PW 9 Versha in their examination in chiefhave stated that they had gone to sleep after eating dinner. Onhearing alarm raised by their father they had got up and saw thattheir mother was strangulating their father. They informed theiruncle about the incident in the morning. Respondent had toldthem that their father had died on account of consumption ofliquor. However PW 8 Bhuro in her cross examination deposedthat she had got up after half an hour of her father’s death. Shehad not seen any injury on her father at night but had seen injurymark in the morning. She also admitted that she had told her[CRLLA 551 2019]brothers after her father had died but nobody had seen deadbody as it was dark. PW 9 Versha in her cross examinationdeposed that everybody had seen dead body in the morning andtill then nobody knew as to how her father had died. Learned trial court after going through the cross examinationof PW 8 Bhuro and PW 9 Versha rightly held that their statementsdid not inspire confidence and were rendered doubtful. No reliancecould be placed on their statements.PW 5 Doctor Narendra Kumar Agarwal deposed that therewere no strangulation marks on the neck of the deceased. So far as PW 3 Dwarika is concerned he has stated that hehad been told by PW 8 Bhuro and PW 9 Versha that Hakim Singhhad given them some tablets and they had slept. At night theirmother had told them that their father had died. However the saidpart of the statement of PW 3 Dwarika is not corroborated byPW 8 Bhuro and PW 9 Versha. PW 4 Satyaprakash son of the deceased deposed that hisfather had been murdered by his mother and Hakim Singh. Hehad been informed by his sister Bhuro regarding the death of hisfather at 9.00 P.M.. Then he reached the spot and saw that hisfather was lying on the floor. In the morning his uncle and othershad seen the dead body and found that there were strangulationmarks on the neck of the deceased. Statement of PW 4Satyaprakash is hearsay. He had narrated the incident asdisclosed to him by his sister Bhuro. However Bhuro has notdeposed to the effect that her father had been murdered by HakimSingh also. Medical evidence does not corroborate his version thatthere were strangulation marks on the neck of the deceased. [CRLLA 551 2019]Keeping in view the material discrepancies in the statementsof the witnesses learned Trial Court rightly came to the conclusionthat the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond theshadow of reasonable doubt.Hon ble the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v.State of Gujarat 2002(1) RCR748 has held thatwhere in a case two views are possible the one which favoursthe accused has to be adopted by the Court.Similarly in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura 2011Supreme Court Cases 479 the Hon ble SupremeCourt after looking into various judgments has laid downparameters in which interference can be made in a judgment ofacquittal by observing as under:“8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absenceof perversity in the judgment and order interference by thisCourt exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction is not warranted.However if the appeal is heard by an appellate court being thefinal court of fact is fully competent to re appreciate reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision.In other words law does not prescribe any limitation restrictionor condition on exercise of such power and the appellate courtis free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind thatacquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. Thepresumption of innocence is available to the person and incriminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocentunless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If tworeasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence onrecord the appellate court should not disturb the findings ofacquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellatecourt to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittalis found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate courtcan also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court withrespect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal[CRLLA 551 2019]against acquittal preferred by the State it is the duty of theappellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record andonly by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside thejudgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interferedwith only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons” for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable” it is acompelling reason for interference. When the trial Court hasignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or hasignored material documents like dying declaration report ofballistic experts etc. the appellate court is competent toreverse the decision of the trial Court depending on thematerials placed” Hence no ground for grant of leave to appeal is made out.Dismissed. J(SABINA) JSanjay Kumawat 8 