LexVINAY D. NAGAR versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'f #' )(, . ·:t ..)\ .. • I' [2008] 3 S.C.R. 735 VINAY D. NAGAR A v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2007) MARCH 3, 2008 . B [P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 364, 450, 302 and 201 - Deceased missing under suspicious circumstances - Later his dead body found .:.. He was a prime witness in a criminal c case against the accused - He had given his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. and was to make a statement uls 164 Cr.PC. in that case - Conviction by courts below on the basis of circumstantial evidence - On appeal, held: Conviction not correct - Prosecution. failed to prove the chain of evidence D which would lead to unequivocal conclusion of pointing to the guilt of the accused ...;. The 161 Cr.PC. statement of the deceased though not barred uls 162 Cr.PC., but was not admissible u/s 32 (1) of Evidence Act- Hence could not have be relied upon- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 161 E and 162 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 32 (1) - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence. Appellant-accused was prosecuted for having killed a person. The deceased was found missing under suspicious circumstances. After commencement of F investigation, the dead body of the deceased was found. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution, against the accused was that the deceased was a prime witness in an abduction case against the appellant; that he had made 161 Cr.P.C. statement and was to make a statement G u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the court in respect of that case; that the conduct of the accused was suspicious as he was absent from duty without taking leave during relevant time and during that period, he stayed in hotel(s) at 735 H 736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. A Ahmedabad under fictitious name(s), while in his 1' ... , statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. he stated that he was at Bombay ' during that time; that there was a possibility of the .. accused to reach the place of incident from Ahmedabad. Trial Court convicted the accused u/ss. 364, 450, 302 B and 201 IPC. High Court confirmed the order of the trial court. Allowing the appeal, the Court ,l HELD: 1.1 Where the evidence is of a circumstantial c nature, circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and the facts, so established, should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive D nature and they should be such as to exclude hypothesis other than the one proposed to be proved. There must be chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any \.. reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show E that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. [Para 5] [741-F, G; 742-A] C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 3390; Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 1989 (Supp) 2 sec 706 - relied on. J ~r F 1.2 The witnesses examined by the prosecution have proved the fact that the accused stayed at some of the hotels in Ahmedabad, but there is no proof of the fact that he checked in the hotel(s) giving the fictitious name. There is no proof of the accused being last seen with the G deceased. The prosecution has failed to prove the accused's presence on the date of the incident at the place of the incident. The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not point to the guilt of the accused. The circumstances on which the High Court has placed H reliance do not establish the guilt of the accused, nor does 1 VINAY D. NAGAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 737 )'" ,. it exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be A ~ proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove the chain of evidence by which one could clearly and unequivocally reach to the conclusion of pointing the guilt of the accused-appellant for commission of the crime. [Para 16] [751-A, B, C, D] B 2.1 Bar of Section 162 Cr.P.C. of proving the statement ·"' recorded by the police officer of any person during " investigation however shall not apply to any statement falling within the provision of clause (1) of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, nor it shall affect Section 27 of the c Evidence Act. Bar of Section 162 Cr.P.C. is in regard to the admissibility of the statement recorded of a person by the police officer unde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.