LexVIJAY KUMAR versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 1 S.C.R. 1078 VIJAY KUMAR V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 441 of 2009) FEBRUARY 18, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: c ss. 302 rlw 120-B, 460 and 382 - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction by courts below - Held: Witness has made material improvements while deposing in court and such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon -- Evidence adduced by prosecution to prove second and third circumstances does 0 not pass the test of credibility and is liable for rejection - The recoveries made indicate that the articles recovered were not in exclusive possession of the appellants - Further, none of the precaution that ought to have been taken to ensure fair identification of the articles recovered was ever taken and no E weight can be attached to the evidence of identification of property -- Both the courts below fell in error in coming to the conclusion that prosecution has established its case based on circumstantial evidence beyond all reasonable doubt -- Benefit of doubt given to both the appellants -- Conviction and sentences imposed on them by courts below are set aside F and they are acquitted of the charges - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Identification - Identification of articles. The appellants-accused A-1 and A-3 were G prosecuted for committing offences punishable u/ss 1208, 302, 460 and 382 IPC. Besides, three other accused were tried along with them for offence punishable u/s 411 l.P .C. The prosecution case was that the deceased, a midwife, was residing in the Hospital where A-1, a doctor H 1078 VIJAY KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 1079 and his brother-in-law, A-3, were also residing; that the A deceased used to give loan on interest on the mortgage of gold and silver ornaments; that A-1 and A-3 conspired and murdered the deceased and stolen the ornaments/ articles possessed by her. However, the case was registered on the written report forwarded by A-1 about B the death of the said midwife. During the investigation A- 1 and A-3 were arrested and on their disclosure, certain ornaments/articles were said to have been recovered. The other three accused were also arrested. Since nobody had witnessed the occurrence and the case was based c on circumstantial evidence, the trial court mainly relied on the following circumstances: (i) The deceased died of homicidal violence. (ii) A-1 had threatened the deceased of possible D income-tax raid and seizure of ornaments possessed by her and persuaded her to shift her residence from village to hqspital premise with her belongings. (iii) Accused no. 5 used to demand the ornaments for E wearing from the deceased; and (iv) On the information furnished by A-1 and A-3 upon their arrest, the ornaments pledged by various persons with the deceased, got recovered from their possession. The trial court found all the accused guilty of the offences charged. A-1 and A-3 were convicted sentenced F to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each u/s 302 read with s. 1208 IPC. Both were further convicted and sentenced to RI for eight years and to pay G a fine of Rs.1000/- each for each of the offences u/s 460 IPC and u/s 382 IPC. Accused nos.2, 4 and 5 were convicted and sentenced to RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500 each u/s 411 IPC. On appeal, the High Court acquitted accused nos. 2, 4 and 5 but, maintained H 1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R. A the conviction and the sentences of the appellants. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from B which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be C consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. [para 6] [1086-A-B] 1.2 In the instant case, from the medical evidence, it 0 is clear that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and the circumstance (i) stood established. [para 8] [1087-D] 1.3 As regards circumstances (ii) and (iii), PW 10, the brother-in-law of the deceased, in his examination-in-chief E stated that the deceased had kept her ornaments in the locker of a bank and A-1 told her that the income
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.