LexRAJA @ RAJINDER versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 3 S.C.R. 947 RAJA@ RAJINDER v. STATE OF HARYANA (Crimi~al Appeal No. 486 of 2010) APRIL 10, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA,JJ.] A B c Penal Code, 1860: ss.302, 201 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Held: The evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was last seen with the accused - Recovery of knife, blood stained clothes and D ashes of the bu mt blanket of the victim-deceased was made at the instance of the accused-appellant - The evidence showed that accused-appellant was suspicious of deceased's relation with his wife - This motive also strengthened the case of the prosecution - Conviction E upheld. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The case of the prosecution entirely hinged F on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances that were established by the prosecution were that the deceased had accompanied the accused-appellant, being called by him, from his house in the early part of the evening on the date of occurrence. Thereafter, the G appellant was seen at the tea stall with the deceased. The brother of the deceased, PW-8 testified that he had enquired from the accused as regards the whereabouts 947 H 948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R. A oftt.e deceased, for the deceased had accompanied the accused and at that juncture the accused had replied that at the tea stall a Sikh boy came and the deceased went with him. As per the prosecution case, the deceased and the accused were co-villagers. In his B statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the accused-appellant totally denied to have accompanied the deceased. The cumulative reading and apposite appreciation of the said evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was last seen with C the accused. Another circumstance was about the recovery of knife, blood-stained clothes and the ashes of the burnt blanket. The seizure witnesses PW-7 and PW-9 proved the seizure. The blood-stained clothes and 0 the weapon, the knife, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Although there has been no matching of the blood group, however, that would not make a difference in the facts of the present case. The accused did not offer any explanation how the human blood was found E on the clothes and the knife. The doctor PW-1 clearly opined that the injuries on the person of the deceased could be caused by the knife and the said opinion had gone unrebutted. Another circumstance was that PW-7, a taxi driver, had deposed that on the fateful day while F he wa!J going to Fatehabad for taking passengers, he saw a bullock cart parked in front of the house of the accused and certain persons were tying a bundle in a "pa Iii". On query being made by him, the accused persons told him that they are carrying manure to the G fields. Though, this witness gave an exaggerated version and stated differently about the time of arrest, yet his testimony to the effect that '1e had seen the accused with a bundle in "palli" at a particular place cannot be disbelieved. The maxim "falsus in uno, falsus H in omnibus", is not applicable in India. The court must RAJA@ RAJINDER v. STATE OF HARYANA 949 make every attempt to separate falsehoods from the A truth, and it must only be in exceptional circumstances, when it is entirely impossible to separate the grain from the chaff, for the same are so inextricably intertwined, that the entire evidence of such a witness must be discarded. Thus viewed, the version of PW-7 to the extent B that was stated was totally acceptable and credible.[Paras 7, 10 to 12, 15 to 17] [955-A-B; 956-D-F; 957-D-G; 958-A; 959-G; 960-A-b,E,G; 961-A-B,E-F] 2. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, c motive assumes great significance as its existence is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning. In the case at hand, it came in the evidence that the accused-appellant was suspicious of the illicit relationship between the deceased and his wife. The o accused took the plea that he was never married. The materials brought on record go a long way to show that after the death of his brother he had entered into the wedlock with his sister-in-law as per the tradition of the community, that is, 'Kareva' marriage. The said facet of E evidence has really not been assailed or shaken. Thus, it was established that the.re was suspicion by the accused that the deceased was having relationship with his brother's wife and th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.