LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus KHERAJ RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STA TE OF RAJASTHAN A v. KHERAJRAM -4"' AUGUST 22, 2003 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYA T, JJ.] B Criminal trial: Conviction-On basis of circumstantial evidence-Justification of- Held: When all incriminating facts and circumstances are incompatible with c the innocence of accused or guilt of any other person, inference of guilt justified-Further, such circumstances are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt-Penal Code, I 860-Evidence Act, I 872-Section 3. Criminal law: D Sentencing-Death sentence-Award of-Principles-Discussed . Determinatioq, of sentence-Principle of proportionality between crime and punishment-Application of-Discussed Penal Code, I 860: E Section 302-Murder-Conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence-Justification of-Held: Since the circumstantial evidence rules out the role of any other person and unerringly as well as inevitably points towards guilt of accused, conviction by trial court justified and acquittal by High Court set aside-Evidence Act, 1872. F Section 302-Murder of two innocent children, a helpless woman and her brother-Death sentence-Imposition of-Justification-Held: Chain of • events of circumstances leading to inevitable conclusion that act being deliberately planned and meticulously executed, accused acting in most cruel and inhuman manner, committing murder in extremely brutal, grotesque, G diabolical, revolting and dastardly manner and there being no remorse for ' ' such gruesome act, death sentence imposed by trial court justified-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 354 (3). Accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC and awarded death sentence. According to the prosecution, respondent-accused suspected his wife H 861 862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A of infidelity and that she did not beget children through him. Their relations were not cordial and they used to have frequent quarrels. As a result he murdered her, his two in.nocent daughters and his brother-in-law at night . . Accused then narrated the story regarding the commission of offence to PW- 9 and other persons who· came at the scene of occurrence on being called by the accused, and when they came to his house the accused was smoking B chilam. Further, on the night of occurrence accused and the victims slept in the same house. Also he was last seen in the company of deceased persons in his house. Prosecution witnesses heard the accused and his wife quarrelling on the previous night. One of the prosecution witnesses lodged FIR. Investigations were carried out Accused made extra-judicial confession before C PW-12 and also on the information and at the instance of accused, blood- stained dothi of accused, ju ti of the deceased and blood-stained kulhari were recovered. Trial Court relied on the circumstantial evidence and convicted the accused under Section 302 and imposed death sentence. State filed reference for confirmation of death sentence. Accused also filed an appeal. D High Court held that circumstances were not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and acquitted the respondent-accused. Hence the present appeal. E Appellant-State contended that the circumstances highlighted and established by the prosecution rule out involvement of any other person and clearly establishes that the respondent was the author of the heinous crime. Respondent-accused contended that lot of manipulation has been done; and that there are other alleged inconsistencies and improbabilities. Allowing the appeal, the Court F 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 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 G sought to be inferred from those circumstances. 1869-G-H; 870-A-BI Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 119771 SC 1063; Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 119561SC316; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 119831SC446; State of UP. v. Sukhbasi and Ors., AIR (1985] H SC 1224; Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 11987) SC 350 and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of MP., AIR 119891SC1890, relied on. • ··' STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KHERAJ RAM 863 Bhagat Ram v. St
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.