Krishna Rajbhar vs State Of Rajasthan

Appellant had faced trial under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in FIR No. 23 dated 15.1.2012 registered at

Police Station Bagru, Jaipur (West). FIR was lodged by Rajesh Kumar Sharma P.W.21 on 15.1.2012.

As per FIR, complainant Rajesh was travelling from his house towards Mansarovar. At about 1:30 PM, complainant saw a gathering of twenty

persons, in a vacant plot near Narayan Vihar Colony. When the complainant reached the spot, he saw that dead body of a person was lying there. On

the basis of statement of complainant, formal FIR was registered.

During investigation of the case, statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan

was presented against the petitioner and his co-accused Nayan Rajbhar. Charges were framed against the accused under Section 302/34 and 201

IPC. Accused did not plead guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined twenty-one witnesses. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. after close of

prosecution evidence prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. He did not know deceased Ratan at all.

Co-accused Nayan Rajbhar absented trial and on 20.8.2018 the trial court forfeited his bail bonds. On 8.10.2018 the co-accused Nayan Rajbhar

was declared an absconder.

Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

Trial court vide judgment/order dated 20.12.2018 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant Krishna Rajbhar under Sections 302/34 and

201 IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. Deceased was not known to the appellant

and there was no reason for the appellant to have committed his murder. So far as P.W.2 Deepti Rajbhar (sister of deceased) is concerned, she has

also stated in her cross-examination that no quarrel had taken placed between the deceased and the accused in her presence. There was material

discrepancy in the testimony of P.W.2 Deepti Rajbhar and P.W.10 Arti (wife of deceased). As per Deepti Rajbhar P.W.2, she had seen Ratan at her

residence from 1:00 PM to 4:30 PM, whereas, Arti P.W.10 has stated that she had seen her husband for the last time at 1:00/1:30 PM on 14.1.2012.

False recoveries have been planted on the appellant by the investigating agency to strengthen its case.

Learned State Counsel has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in establishing its case. Deceased had

been last seen in the company of appellant and his co-accused and thereafter, dead body of the deceased was recovered. As per the Forensic Science

Laboratory Examination Report, blood stains found on the jeans of the appellant matched with the blood group of the deceased.

Present case relates to murder of Ratan. Case rests on circumstantial evidence.

It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79), as under:-

........ This Court in a series of decisions has consistently held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the

following tests:

(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human

probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the

guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (See

Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra).

It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Brajendrasingh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1552, a

under:-

There is no doubt that it is not a case of direct evidence but the conviction of the accused is founded on circumstantial evidence. It is a settled

principle of law that the prosecution has to satisfy certain conditions before a conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained. The

circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and should also be consistent with only one hypothesis, i.e.

the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive and proved by the prosecution. There must be a chain of events so complete so as

not to leave any substantial doubt in the mind of the Court. Irresistibly, the evidence should lead to the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of

the accused and the only possibility that the accused has committed the crime. To put it simply, the circumstances forming the chain of events should

be proved and they should cumulatively point towards the guilt of the accused alone. In such circumstances, 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.

Furthermore, the rule which needs to be observed by the Court while dealing with the cases of circumstantial evidence is that the best evidence must

be adduced which the nature of the case admits. The circumstances have to be examined cumulatively. The Court has to examine the complete chain

of events and then see whether all the material facts sought to be established by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, have been

proved beyond reasonable doubt. It has to be kept in mind that all these principles are based upon one basic cannon of our criminal jurisprudence that

the accused is innocent till proven guilty and that the accused is entitled to a just and fair trial.

Lets examine circumstances brought on record by the prosecution to come to a conclusion as to whether the prosecution has been successful in

proving its case or not.

As per prosecution story, deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant Krishna Rajbhar and his co-accused Nayan Rajbhar. In this

regard, prosecution has placed reliance on the testimony of Deepti Rajbhar P.W.2 and Arti P.W.10.

Deepti Rajbhar P.W.2 deposed that her brother Ratan was married to Arti. Ratan was working as a Painter. Nayan and Krishna took Ratan

alongwith them. She further stated that on the day of incident, accused Nayan Rajbhar and Krishna Rajbhar returned home but her brother Ratan had

not returned home. In her cross-examination by the counsel for the appellant, she deposed that she did not know the date of incident. She also

admitted that whatever she has stated was disclosed to her by others. In her cross-examination deposed that she had not seen her brother leaving with

accused Nayan Rajbhar and Krishna Rajbhar. Hence, the statement of Deepti Rajbhar P.W.2 fails to advance the prosecution case being merely

'hearsay'.

Arti P.W.10 deposed that she was married to Ratan about five years ago and out of the said wedlock, she was blessed with a son and a daughter.

They were residing in a rented accommodation in Vaishali Nagar. Ganesh Rajbhar uncle of her husband and Nayan Rajbhar were also residing on

rent in a separate room. Her husband was working as a Painter. Nayan Rajbhar was married to Pinky. Pinky had left with another boy. Her sister-in-

law had also run away with Pinky. Her sister-in-law had returned home after one month but Pinky had not returned home. Due to this reason, her

sister-in-law was not on talking terms with Nayan Rajbhar. Her husband had threatened Nayan Rajbhar that he should not look at his wife and in

case, he made his wife run away, then he would fix him. There was no talk between her and Nayan Rajbhar. They all were from one village. On

14.1.2012 Dharmendra Contractor had given Rs. 3,000/- to her husband towards wages. He had also given wages to other labour. On that day,

labourer Krishna Rajbhar son of Banwari Rajbhar had also come to meet Nayan Rajbhar. On that day, at about 12:00 noon, her uncle-in-law Ganesh

and his wife Sumitra had gone to visit a zoo. Then Nayan Rajbhar and Krishna Rajbhar came out of their room and started watching TV in the room

of Vinod. At about 1:00/1:30 PM, Nayan Rajbhar, Krishna Rajbhar and her husband left the home by telling her that they were going out to roam

around. At about 4:00/5:00 PM, her uncle-in-law returned home and at about 10:00 PM Nayan Rajbhar and Krishna Rajbhar also returned home.

They were under the influence of liquor. However, her husband Ratan did not return home. When she inquired about whereabouts of her husband

from accused, then they did not give her any satisfactory reply. Then they searched for her husband. On 15.1.2012 at about 10:00 AM they were

shown photograph in the newspaper by Vinod and she came to know that her husband had been murdered. Her husband had been murdered by

Nayan Rajbhar and Krishna Rajbhar. Nayan Rajbhar and Krishna Rajbhar had left the house on 15.1.2012.

Thus, as per Arti P.W.10, deceased had gone with the appellant and his co-accused and in the evening appellant and his co-accused had returned

home but deceased had not returned home. Arti P.W.10 was cross-examined at length but her testimony with regard to the fact that appellant and his

co-accused had left home together at about 1:00/1:30 PM could not be shaken. Hence, from the testimony of Arti P.W.10 circumstance that the

deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant and his co-accused is duly established.

So far as Ganesh Rajbhar P.W.1 is concerned, he has deposed with regard to the fact that he had gone to visit zoo on 14.1.2012 and on the next

day, he had enquired about the whereabouts of his nephew Ratan from sister and wife of Ratan and they had told him that he had gone with Nayan

Rajbhar and Krishna Rajbhar.

Sumitra Rajbhar P.W.3 wife of Ganesh Rajbhar has corroborated the statement of Ganesh Rajbhar P.W.1.

Vijay Kumar P.W.5 deposed that on 17.1.2012 at 4:00 PM, Sub Inspector Mahesh Singh had arrested accused Nayan Rajbhar vide arrest memo

Exhibit-P/3. This witness also stated that on 21.1.2012 at 4:30 PM, SHO Durga Ram had arrested accused Krishna Rajbhar vide arrest memo Exhibit-

P/18.

Dr. Anil Agarwal P.W.13 proved Post Mortem Examination Report Exhibit-P/22. A perusal of Exhibit-P/22 reveals that deceased had suffered

following injuries:-

Ante-mortem injuries-

Clean cut wound with averted edges, tapering end and sharp wound on middle of neck, 6cm x 10cm in middle 1/3rd of neck at thyroid cartridge

with clean cutting of oesophagous, trachea, great vessels of neck, sterno-cleidomestoid muscles, hyoid and thyroid cartridge hyoid bone redish with

clotted blood.

Stab wound total 21 in number on chest and epigestium each 1½ cm x 0.6cm, redish of varying depth and direction. More penetrating and more in

number on left side. One is penetrating in heart and lung punctured. Spleen shows stab wound.

Opinion:-

The cause of death is Coma due to neurogenic and hemorrhagic shock due to ante mortem injuries as mentioned in this post-portem report, which is

sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

Dr. Surendra Mohan P.W.14 has corroborated the statement of Dr. Anil Agarwal P.W.13.

Complainant Rajesh Kumar Sharma appeared in the witness box as P.W.21 and deposed as per the contents of FIR.

Mahesh Singh P.W.19 investigating officer deposed that on 15.1.2012 he received an information on phone that a dead body was lying in

Ganatpura Road, JDA Colony. He reached the spot and registered the FIR in question on the basis of statement of the complainant. Site plan of the

spot was prepared. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and was made into a sealed parcel. Blood stained motorcycle Clutch Wire found

around the neck of the deceased was taken in possession and was made into a sealed parcel. Clothes of the deceased were also taken in possession

and were made into a sealed parcel. Jeans, leather belt and a pair of plastic Chappal of the deceased were taken in possession from the spot. Mobile

battery bearing impression 'Kovtra True Quality' was taken in possession. One broken phone was also taken in possession. Statements of witness

were recorded. The place of incident was got photographed. Accused Nayan was arrested on 17.1.2012. Thereafter, investigation was handed over

to the investigating officer Durga Ram.

Durga Ram P.W.18 deposed that on 18.1.2012 he took over the investigation of the case. Disclosure statement of accused Nayan Rajbhar was

recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act and on the basis of the same, accused Nayan Rajbhar got recovered a knife from the disclosed

place. He also got recovered jacket worn by him at the time of incident from the disclosed place. The said articles were taken in possession. This

witness also stated that accused Krishna Rajbhar was arrested on 21. 1.2012. Accused Krishna Rajbhar suffered disclosure statement under Section

27 of the Indian Evidence Act and got recovered knife used by him at the time of incident from the disclosed place. He also got recovered his jeans

and shirt worn by him at the time of incident from the disclosed place. Blood stained knife as well as blood stained clothes of accused were taken in

possession. Recovered articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.

Farooq Khan P.W.20 has corroborated the statement of Durga Ram P.W.18 with regard to recovery of articles at the instance of appellant.

Exhibit-P/48 is the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan. The result of examination is reproduced here-in-below:-

As per Exhibit-P/31, the knife recovered on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by appellant has been marked as 'G' and as per Exhibit-P/32

jeans and shirt of the appellant recovered on the basis of his disclosure statement have been marked as 'H'. Combined reading of Exhibit-P/32 and

Exhibit-P/48 reveals that the blood stained jeans which was recovered at the instance of the appellant tested positive for human blood group 'A'.

A perusal of Exhibit-P/12 reveals that blood stained shirt and banyan of the deceased had been marked as 'D'. A combined reading of Exhibit-

P/12 and Exhibit-P/48 reveals that shirt and banyan of deceased tested positive for human blood of blood group 'A'. Blood smeared clutch wire which

was found around the neck of deceased also tested positive for human blood group 'A'.

Thus, the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution to establish its case against the accused appellant are:-

1) Deceased was 'last seen' in the company of appellant and his co-accused. Arti P.W.10 has categorically deposed that her husband Ratan had gone

alongwith the appellant and accused Nayan Rajbhar at about 1:00/1:30 PM. In the evening, Nayan Rajbhar and appellant Krishna Rajbhar had

returned home but her husband Ratan had not returned home. Appellant and accused Nayan Rajbhar had failed to give any satisfactory reply with

regard to whereabouts of the deceased. Dead body of deceased was recovered on 15.1.2012 with sharp weapon injuries. Statement of Arti P.W.10

inspires confidence. The testimony of Arti P.W.10 with regard to the fact that deceased had left with the appellant and his co-accused could not be

shaken during her cross-examination. Moreover, the said witness had no enmity or ill-will against the appellant to have falsely involved him in this

case. Thus, the prosecution has been successful in establishing the circumstance of 'last seen' in the present case.

2) Another significant circumstance brought on record by the prosecution is that the blood stained clothes of the appellant which were recovered in

pursuance to his disclosure statement were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. As per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory

Exhibit-P/48, the jeans recovered at the instance of appellant tested positive for human blood group 'A'. Shirt and banyan worn by the deceased also

tested positive for human blood group 'A'. This shows that jeans worn by appellant got stained with deceased's blood. The said circumstance strongly

corroborates the testimony of Arti P.W.10 with regard to the involvement of appellant in the crime.

Thus, in the present case, prosecution had been successful in establishing its case against the appellant. The possibility that the appellant might be

innocent has been ruled out. Rather, circumstances brought on record by the prosecution lead towards the guilt of the appellant. Hence, the learned

trial court had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant vide impugned judgment/order.

No ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.