LexVIVEK KALRA versus STATE .OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2013] 1 S.C.R. 1070 VIVEK KALRA v. STATE .OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2007) FEBRUARY 15, 2013. [A.K. PATNAIKAND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Medical evidence that 2 of the 9 injuries on the C deceased could not have been caused by the alleged weapon of offence - Courts below on the basis of the motive •and circumstances of the case convicted the accused - On appeal, held: Motive not proved - But absence of motive would not affect the prosecution case where the chain of other D circumstances establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused and accused alone committed the offence - Circumstances of the present case prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt - As per the medical evidence, majority of the injuries were stated to have been caused by E the weapon of crime and were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death - The general good behaviour of the accused has no nexus with the offence alleged - Conviction upheld. The appellant-accused was prosecuted for killing 13- 14 years old boy. The prosecution case is based on F circumstantial evidence. The motive for murder was that the accused took revenge from his uncle by killing the deceased (deceased being son of the uncle) because the uncle as a guardian to him was not giving him an amount of Rs. 80,000/ which was in a fixed deposit in his name. G Trial court convicted him u/s. 302 IPC. High Court affirmed the conviction. In appeal to this Court, appellant-accused contended that motive could not be said to have been proved; that H 1070 VIVEK KALRA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 1071 PW5 deposed that the accused had a good behaviour A and had no bad habit; and that as per the medical evidence, injury Nos. 8 and 9 on the person of the deceased could not have been caused by the weapon of offence i.e. 'dantli', and therefore prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Where prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence only, motive is a relevant fact and· can be taken into consideration under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, C 1872 but where the chain of other circumstances establish beyond reasonable doubt that it is the accused and accused alone who has committed the offence and this is one such case, the Court cannot hold that in the absence of motive of the accused being established by D the prosecution, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence. [Para 6] [1076-D-E] Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 13 SCC 90: 2007 (13) SCR 653 - relied on. E 2. In the instant case, the dead body of the deceased was found on the morning of 08.06.1997 at around 8.00 a.m. and it is clear from the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 that the appellant had taken the deceased in a scooter between 7.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. on 07.06.1997 on the F pretext of getting a cassette. PW-28 has confirmed that between 8.00 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. the appellant had come to his cassette shop and taken the cassette. It is also clear from the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 that neither the appellant nor the deceased returned on the evening of G 07.06.1997. From the evidence of PW-26 and PW-7, it is clear that the blood-stained dantli has been recovered from the place of occurrence and the blacksmith, PW-13, has confirmed that he had sold that particular dantli to the appellant. [Para 7] [1076-G-H; 1077-A-B] H 1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A 3. PW-22, the doctor has said in his evidence that injury nos. 1 to 7 could have been caused by the dantli and that the death of the deceased has been caused from shock and haemorrhage with blood oozing from all the injuries. The number and nature of the injuries together s are enough in the ordinary course to cause death and have been caused by dantli purchased by the appellant. Hence, merely because the prosecution has not been able to prove that injury Nos. 8 and 9 have been caused by dantli, it cannot be held that it is not the appellant who has caused c the death of the deceased. [Para 8] [1077-C-E] 4. The general good behaviour of the appellant and the fact that he had no bad habit as stated by PW-5 have no nexus with the offence alleged against the appellant and are not relevant when other circumstances have D established beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellant and the appellant alone who has committed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.