RAJU @ RAJENDRA PRASAD versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 241 · Decided: 19-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
241
RAJU @ RAJENDRA PRASAD
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 1559 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Penal Code – ss.302, 34 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence
– As per FIR, the appellants-accused (wife of the deceased and co-
accused) had illicit relations – It was further stated that on account
of disputes, the accused started residing in her paternal house –
That the deceased went to his in-law’s house to bring her and the
children back, however, on the next day his body was found hanging
from tree – Appellants convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34 – On appeal, held:
Case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence – There
is no direct evidence that the appellants killed or committed the
murder of the deceased – In a case of circumstantial evidence, the
circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete
that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human
probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else –
Circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be
complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than
that of the guilt of the accused – Such evidence should not only be
consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent
with his innocence – There is no evidence that the accused were
last seen together with the deceased – Prosecution failed to prove
the guilt and complete chain of events leading to the only conclusion
that the appellants alone committed murder and/or killed the
deceased – Order of conviction passed by Trial Court and High
Court set aside – Accused acquitted – Evidence.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: The case rests on the circumstantial evidence.
There is no direct evidence by which it can be said that the
appellants killed or committed the murder of the deceased. There
is no direct evidence recorded indicating involvement of the
appellants in the crime; the case of the prosecution is based on
the circumstantial evidence. In case of a circumstantial evidence,
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 241
241
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
242
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within
all human probability the crime was committed by the accused
and none else and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any
other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such
evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused
but should be inconsistent with his innocence. On considering
the deposition of PW-6 (daughter of the deceased), who can be
said to be the star witness and on whose deposition the appellants
- accused are held guilty for the offence punishable under Section
302/34 IPC, even it cannot be said that the prosecution has
established and proved that the accused were last seen together
with the deceased. In the examination-in-chief, PW-6 has stated
that after some quarrel, the grandmother took the deceased to
the room where the deceased went to sleep. That thereafter she
also gone to sleep and when in the morning she woke up, she
came to know that her papa was found hanging on the tree. In the
cross-examination, she has specifically stated that she has not
seen anybody beating her father. Thus, there is no evidence that
the accused were seen last together with the deceased. There is
no evidence what happened after the deceased went to the room
and had gone to sleep. Under the circumstances, the prosecution
has failed to prove the guilt and complete chain of events, which
may lead to the only conclusion that the appellants - accused alone
committed murder and/or killed the deceased. The Trial Court
as well as the High Court have committed a very serious error in
convicting the appellants – accused for the offence under Section
302/34 IPC based on such circumstantial evidence. The judgment
and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court as well as the
High Court convicting the appellants – original accused for the
offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC are quashed and
set aside and the accused are acquitted for the offence for which
they are convicted. [Paras 7.1, 7.7 and 8][246-F-H; 249-H; 250-
A-E]
Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189 : [2010] 9
SCR 1039; G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka,
(2010) 8 SCC 593 : [2010] 10 SCR 377 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
243
Mohd.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.