Dismissed

State of Rajasthan v. Vijay Basfod

Rajasthan HC12 Nov 2018CRLLA/9/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the State's appeal in a murder case. It held that the trial Court correctly acquitted the accused as the prosecution failed to prove the last seen circumstance or link the injuries to the accused, violating basic principles of evidentiary corroboration. No illegality was found in the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal filed by the State is dismissed; acquittal of the accused is affirmed.

State of Rajasthan Vs Vijay Basfod — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

Mh0 ch0 fØ0 yho Vq vihy ua0 9@2015

¶3

vUrxZr

¶4

Mh0 ch0 fØ0 vihy ua0 @2014

jktLFkku jkT;

-------vihykFkhZ

cuke

1-fot; cklQksM iq= Jh fcgkjh yky cklQksM tkfr fgUnw fuoklh dcwrj’kkyk ds ihNs uy xksnke ds ikl xat ftyk vtesj ¼jktLFkku½

¶9

----vfHk;qDr&jsLiksUMsaV

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Ms.Sonia Shandilya, Public Prosecutor For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

12/11/2018

¶14

Heard learned Public Prosecutor on leave to appeal filed against the order dated 07^th June, 2014 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4, Ajmer in Sessions Case No.17/13 (35/2013).

¶15

An FIR was registered on a report by Sheikh Salim s/o Sheikh Arif. Therein, it was stated that his son was found dead in Rishi Ghati. He may have died out of cold and otherwise, he was addict of liquor. As per the postmortem, cause of death was out of internal injuries to the deceased. A report was then made based on suspicion alleging that deceased was last seen with Vijay on his

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLLA-9/2015]

¶18

scooter. The complainant thus made suspicion against Vijay for causing occurrence.

¶19

After the charge sheet, the trial Court framed charges for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution produced PW – 1 Noor Mohammad to prove its case. The said witness had prepared Exhibit P- 2 and P – 3. PW – 1 Noor Mohammad had prepared “Panchnama” on 11^th January, 2013. PW – 6 Sheikh Salim has stated about death of his younger son Shakir. The death said to be out of cold. The witness was declared hostile, as he did not support the prosecution case, though, he had admitted signature on P- 8 and P – 12, however, he did not endorse his statement P - 14 before the Police. The witness has not admitted evidence for last seen with the accused Vijay.

¶20

PW – 7 Parveen is sister of the deceased. It was stated that her brother’s dead body was found but no injury was visible on the person of deceased. He was admitted in the hospital. The witness has not supported the prosecution case and even denied evidence for last seen of the deceased with the accused Vijay.

¶21

PW – 8 Sheikh Medul was also declared hostile. Another witness is PW – 9 Ramzan @ Ramzani. He has shown his ignorance about cause of death. He has acknowledged the facts about death of deceased, however, he has refused last seen of deceased with accused Vijay thus did not support prosecution case for last seen. The prosecution could not produce any other evidence to connect accused with the crime. No recovery has been effected from the accused. The witnesses produced by prosecution have not proved last seen with accused Vijay, therefore, the first required element to prove the case of circumstantial evidence is missing.

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CRLLA-9/2015]

¶24

PW – 12 Chetna Bhati had caused the investigation and stated that body was recovered but she could not produce any evidence to connect accused with the crime, rather, it was stated that FIR was lodged based on suspicion. No injury was visible on the person of deceased, though, in the postmortem report, internal injuries were shown but the prosecution could not prove that those injuries were caused by accused by assigning weapon or otherwise. In fact, the prosecution utterly failed to prove its case and accordingly, the trial Court has acquitted the accused Vijay from the offence under Section 302 IPC.

¶25

We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the leave to appeal preferred by the State is dismissed.

¶26

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J (M.N. BHANDARI),J

¶27

Preeti/9

State of Rajasthan v. Vijay Basfod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Vijay Basfod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Kumar Mathur Andors Vs High Court of Judicature Andanr

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kalu Lal S/O Heera Lal B/C Lodha Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Heere Khan and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Vinod Kumar Bairwa S/O Shri Panna Ram Vs Registrar, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Yakoob and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp