9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302, Penal Code for murder. 2. Conviction under Section 411, Penal Code for receiving stolen property. 3. Conviction under Section 201, Penal Code for causing disappearance of evidence. 4. Identification and credibility of circumstantial evidence. 5. Validity of the discovery of the skeleton and its identification. 6. Ownership and theft of the recovered ornaments and valuables. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction under Section 302, Penal Code for murder: The first charge against Chandmal was committing the murder of Mst. Nazar Bai. The prosecution relied wholly on circumstantial evidence, which included: (i) Chandmal being seen following Nazar Bai when she left her house, (ii) recovery of ornaments belonging to the deceased from Chandmal, and (iii) discovery of a skeleton identified as Nazar Bai's from a house occupied by Chandmal. The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must satisfy three tests: the circumstances must be firmly established, unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused, and form a complete chain leading to the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused. The court found that the evidence did not meet these criteria. The witness testimonies were inconsistent, and there was no clear proof that Chandmal followed Nazar Bai to her death. Thus, the conviction under Section 302 was not upheld. 2. Conviction under Section 411, Penal Code for receiving stolen property: The prosecution alleged that Chandmal and Ranglal were dishonest receivers of stolen property belonging to Mst. Nazar Bai. However, the court noted that there was no evidence of theft reported by Shankarlal or anyone else. The valuables found in the deceased's house during the investigation were still intact, and no case of theft was registered. The court highlighted that for an offense under Section 411, the property must be proven to be stolen, which was not established in this case. The recovered ornaments were not conclusively proven to belong to the deceased, and the delay in recovery (two years after the disappearance) further weakened the prosecution's case. Consequently, the conviction under Section 411 was not sustained. 3. Conviction under Section 201, Penal Code for causing disappearance of evidence: Chandmal was also convicted under Section 201 for causing the disappearance of evidence. However, no separate sentence was passed on this count. The court's analysis of the circumstantial evidence and the inconsistencies in witness testimonies led to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove beyond doubt that Chandmal was guilty of this charge. The court found that the evidence did not support the claim that Chandmal had caused the disappearance of evidence related to the alleged murder. 4. Identification and credibility of circumstantial evidence: The court scrutinized the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The testimonies of key witnesses, such as Madan Bai and Naini Bai, were found to be inconsistent and unreliable. The court noted that the presence of Chandmal at the deceased's house and his departure following her were not unusual, given their regular knitting and embroidery work together. The court also questioned the credibility of the identification of the skeleton and the recovered ornaments, noting several suspicious features and procedural lapses in the investigation. The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete and unbroken chain pointing to Chandmal's guilt. 5. Validity of the discovery of the skeleton and its identification: The prosecution claimed that the skeleton discovered in a house occupied by Chandmal was that of Mst. Nazar Bai. The identification was based on the clothes and ornaments found on the skeleton. However, the court found several issues with this claim. The skeleton and ornaments were not sealed immediately upon discovery, and there were discrepancies in the preparation of the recovery memo. The court also noted that the skeleton was discovered in a house belonging to Ranglal, not Chandmal, and that the keys used to unlock the house were in the possession of the investigating officer for several days. These factors led the court to doubt the authenticity of the discovery and the identification of the skeleton as that of Mst. Nazar Bai. 6. Ownership and theft of the recovered ornaments and valuables: The prosecution failed to prove that the recovered ornaments and valuables belonged to Mst. Nazar Bai and were stolen from her. The court noted that there was no mention of missing ornaments in the initial police report, and Shankarlal did not report any theft even after the investigation began. The court also highlighted that the deceased was not known to possess substantial wealth or valuable ornaments. The identification of the ornaments by Shankarlal and other witnesses was found to be unreliable. As a result, the court concluded that the prosecution did not establish that the recovered items were stolen property, which was essential for a conviction under Section 411. Conclusion: The court allowed the appeal of Chandmal and Ranglal, set aside their convictions, and acquitted them of all charges. The court ordered their immediate release, noting that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in witness testimonies, procedural lapses in the investigation, and lack of conclusive evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants.
|
