LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus NARESH @ RAM NARESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 589
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
A
V.
NARESH @.RAM NARESH
(Criminal Appeal No. 837 of 2002)
AUGUST 26, 2009
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
f
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302 and 394 - Murder- Lady c
killed and her ornaments taken away- Both legs of deceased
amputated - Prosecution case rested on circumstantial
evidence - Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High Court
- Challenge to - Held: Evidence regarding commission of
offence by accused in the field and amputation of legs of D
1
deceased neither cogent nor reliable -
Recovery of
ornaments shrouded in total mystery - Alleged weapon of
offence recovered from open place and did not contain blood
stains - View taken by High Court plausible view, therefore,
benefit must go to accused and not to prosecution - Not a E
case where evidence led was trustworthy and conclusively
established that accused only committed the offence -
Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, no
scope for interference with order of acquittal - Appeal -
Against acquittal - Scope for interference - Evidence -
F
Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of.
According to the prosecution, the respondent
accused killed a lady and took away her ornaments. It
was alleged that the respondent amputated both legs of
G
the deceased by use of a "Khurpi" and took away a pair
....
11-
of silver anklets of feet, one pair of silver bracelets of
hands, one pair of silver ear-rings and one golden nose-
ring (nath). The entire case of the prosecution rested on
589
H
~1
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 'circumstantial evidence.
The trial court on the basis of the evidence on record
held that the prosecution produced following four types
of circumstantial evidences: (i) the accused was
B examining the palm by way of palmistry, of the deceased
and the deceased went towards the field; (ii) the accused
also went towards the field; (iii) the accused washed his
hands after committing the offence and blood of the
~·
deceased was found at the field and (iv) the accused
c returned from the field smeared with mud, alongwith a
"Potli" in his hand, he was seen going away from the
village, and upon the identification of the accused, the
jewellery of the deceased, which had been removed and
taken away by amputating feet from her body, the same
D were seized and identification proceedings of the
jewellery-items were carried out. The trial court held that
the aforesaid circumstances proved and established that
the respondent had committed the offence and convicted
him under ss.302 and 394 IPC. The High Court, however,
E acquitted the respondent holding that there was no eye-
witness to the occurrence and that none of the
circumstances led to the inference that the respondent
had committed the alleged offence. Hence the present
appeal.
F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: { An order of acquittal should not be lightly
interfered with even if the court believes that there is
G some evidence pointing out the finger towards the
accused. [Para 18] [602-8]
Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. (2004) 13 SCC 257;
it -
Chandrappa v. State of Kamataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 and
State of U.P. v. Gambhir Singh (2005) 11 SCC 271, referred
H to.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. NARESH@ RAM
591
NARESH
2.1. In the present case, none of the circumstances
A
relied upon by the prosecution stands proved against the
respondent leading to a definite conclusion that it was he,
who had committed the offence. It has come on evidence
that deceased went towards the field on 12.08.1993 at
about 3 o'clock and that accused also went to the field
B
with a "Lotah" in his hand. However, such a statement
appears not to have been made before the police and the
same was found to be an improvement by the High Court
and recorded so in the Judgment. PW-4 has stated in her
deposition that she had gone to the "Kothi" for feeding
C
the cattle. She has also stated that when she was sitting
at the field for drinking water to cattle, she saw accused
was running towards the village and that accused was
having a "Gaddi" with him and also one "Gaon". In her
cross-examination, she stated that she had seen the
D
accused sitting at the "Kheli" and that she had turned her
back towards accused because accused was washing
his hands. If that witness was present in the field near the
place of occurrence, there was no occasion as to why
she woulExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.