LexRAMESH BHAI & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 949 RAMESH BHAI & ANR. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal Nos. 868-869 of 2004) APRIL 24, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 1208 and 201 - Death allegedly caused due to poisonous injections administered C into body of deceased by accused-appellants - Prosecution case resting on circumstantial evidence - Trial court convicted the appellants - High Court upheld conviction - Justification of - Held: Not justified - Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be o justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are incompatible with innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person - Circumstances from which inference as to guilt of accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the E principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances - On facts, the only evidence pressed into service by prosecution was that the injections were recovered from a lane near the house of the accused - Evidence adduced was of a shaky nature - Appellants acquitted - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of. F According to the prosecution, the accused- appellants took PW9 and her husband on an outstation visit and made them drink coffee containing sleeping pills and when PW9's husband became unconscious after G drinking the same, the appellants administered poisonous injections into his body which caused his death. The trial court held that though the prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, the. 949 H 950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 6 S.C.R. A circumstances clearly established the accusations and accordingly convicted the appellants under ss .302, 1208 and 201 IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction. In appeals to this Court, the question which arose for consideration was whether the circumstances 8 highlighted by the prosecution did not establish the accusations against the appellants and they were liable to be acquitted. c Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the 0 innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. 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. [Para 5) [954-E; 954- E G] Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063; Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka AIR 1983 SC 446; F State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. AIR 1989 SC 1890; Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193; Padala Veera G Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79; State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992 Crl.LJ 1104; Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of Rajasthan H v. Rajaram 2003 (8) SCC 180; State of Haryana v. Jagbir RAMESH BHAI & ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 951 Singh and Anr. 2003 (11) sec 261 and State of UP. v. Ram A Balak & Anr. 2008 (13) SCALE 541, relied on. Wills' Circumstantial Evidence by Alfred Wills (Chapter VI), referred to. 2.1. In the present case, the dead body was found on 8 20th January, 1996 whereas accused persons were stated to have been seen in the company of the deceased on 8th and 9th January, 1996. The missing person's report was lodged on 12th January, 1996 by PW 11 the nephew of the deceased. The only evidence which was C pressed into service by the prosecution was that the injections were recovered from a lane near the house of the accused. [Paras 14 & 15] [958:.C-E] 2.2. The High Court recorded a finding as if it was o proved through the prosecution evidence and medical evidence and the report of Doctor that the cause of death of the deceased was 'Organo Phosphorous' which was administered to him. This finding is apparently wrong. The doctor's opinion as is evident from Exh.P15-1 was E
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.