Dismissed

Mamta v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Apr 2019CRLAD/43/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the accused, the victim's uncle, in a murder case where the prosecution alleged the accused took the deceased, murdered her, and disposed of the body in a pond. The High Court upheld the acquittal, finding the prosecution failed to provide clinching evidence to establish the chain of circumstances.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was rejected, and the acquittal of the accused was upheld.

Mamta Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 43/2019

¶3

Mamta D/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About 22 Years, By Caste Bheel, Resident Of Lohariya Pada, Tehsil Garhi District Banswara.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

Nathu S/o Jahan Kalasuwa, By Caste Aadiwasi, Resident Of Lohariya Pada, P.s. Garhi, District Banswara.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr.Rakesh Matoria. For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.S.Bhati, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶11

Judgment

¶12

BY THE COURT : (PER HON’BLE MEHTA J.) 05/04/2019

¶13

The instant appeal has been preferred by the victim appellant Smt.Mamta being aggrieved of the judgment dated 20.8.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No.68/2015 whereby, the respondent No.2 accused Shri Nathu was acquitted of the charges under Section 302 I.P.C.

¶14

Learned counsel Shri Rakesh Matoria seeking admission of the appeal vehemently and fervently urges that the evidence led by the prosecution is foolproof and establishes the guilt of the accused beyond all manner of doubt. The accused is the complainant’s uncle. The complainant’s mother had sold a huge chunk of land and had received the sale proceeds thereof. The respondent accused took her mother Ramudi with him saying that they would be going to Partapur in the early morning of 23.4.2015. Thereafter, her mother did not return. When inquiry

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CRLAD-43/2019]

¶17

was made from Nathu, he stated that Ramudi had gone in Nata with someone. When the whereabouts of Ramudi were not traceable, the F.I.R. was lodged at the P.S. Garhi on 18.5.2015. The dead body of her mother was recovered from the Rabadiya Talab. She identified the body to be of her mother on the basis of the clothes available on the dead body. He submits that the evidence of last seen led by the prosecution during the trial, was clinchingly pointed to the guilt of the accused. Once the evidence of last seen was established, the burden to prove as to how Smt.Ramudi’s body landed up in the pond, shifted on to the accused, who failed to offer any plausible explanation for the same. He thus urges that the learned trial court was not justified in acquitting the accused by assigning hyper-technical reasoning and that the appeal is fit for admission.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and craved dismissal of the appeal.

¶19

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by Shri Matoria and learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment.

¶20

Suffice it to say that the prosecution case is based on an aspersion that the accused took away the deceased with him on 18.5.2015; divested her of the sale proceeds of the field, murdered her and threw her dead body into the pond. In addition to the evidence of last seen, the prosecution claims that the Payjeb of the deceased was recovered from the accused and was identified by the appellant herein. The trial court, while appreciating the entire material available on record, took note of the significant fact that the body was not recovered from the pond

¶21

(3 of 4)

¶22

[CRLAD-43/2019]

¶23

but only a skeleton was recovered. The medical evidence did not establish the fact that the skeleton was of a female. While dealing with the evidence of last seen, the trial court considered the statement of the appellant Mamta P.W.9, who deposed that her mother was taken away by Nathu on 23.4.2015 in the morning at 5 O’clock. Her mother did not return on which, her sister in law Laxmi lodged a report at the Police Station on 18.5.2015. Inquiry was made from Nathu before lodging the report on which, he replied that Laxmi had gone in Nata. The witness identified the Payjeb in the test identification proceedings. The witness admitted in her cross examination that no such aspersion was cast in the Missing Persons Report dated 18.5.2015 that the accused Nathu took away the deceased with him. The skeleton of the dead body was recovered on 20.5.2015 whereafter, the F.I.R. came to be registered. The witness also admitted in her cross examination that the Police showed her the Payjeb in the Police Station. P.W.10 Laxmi alleged in her statement that her mother in law Ramudi had gone from the house at about 5 O’clock saying that she was going to Partapur and would return home shortly. She lodged the Missing Persons Report (Ex.P16) after 27 days. Some sheepherders gave an information about the skeleton found in the pond on which they went to the spot. They identified the body by the clothes, the bangles etc. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that the articles on the strength whereof she identified the body to be of her mother-in-law, were not available in the court. Concluding the matter, the learned trial Judge held that the omission in the Missing Persons Report (Ex.P.16) lodged by Smt.Laxmi (daughter-in-law of deceased) on 18.5.2015 that the deceased had left the house with the accused, was very significant

¶24

(4 of 4) [CRLAD-43/2019]

¶25

and went to the root of the matter and contradicted the belated theory of last seen set up in the F.I.R. (Ex.P14) lodged on 22.5.2015. Regarding the evidence of motive, the trial court considered the fact that as per the witnesses P.W.6 Thanu and P.W.8 Laxman, there existed no dispute whatsoever between the respondent and Smt.Ramudi over the transaction of sale of land which Laxmi and Mamta portrayed to be the motive behind the crime. The trial court also held that the medical evidence did not conclusively prove that the skeleton so recovered from the pond was that of Ramudi and thus, failure of the prosecution to get conducted the DNA test was considered to be fatal regarding identification of the dead body. The trial court also considered the fact that the Payjeb recovered at the instance of the accused was commonly available in the market and accordingly, the recovery of the Payjeb too was held to be inconsequential. With these findings, the trial court proceeded to acquit the accused of the charges.

¶26

Having appreciated the entire material available on record, we are in conformity with the conclusions drawn by the trial court in the impugned judgment that the prosecution could not prove the chain of circumstances by leading clinching, cogent and convincing evidence so as to unwaveringly establish the guilt of the accused.

¶27

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant appeal which is hereby rejected.

¶28

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶29

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶30

/tarun goyal/ 13

Mamta v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suban Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ratan Lal Vs State

Jaswant @ Jasa Ram Vs State

Smt Parasi Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

State Vs Lakhan Singh and Ors.

Vinod Kumar and Ors. Vs State