Print Previous Hint Next Hint Print Print
This product is Licensed to :

2001 1 Crimes(HC) 77
2001 (1) Crimes 77
N.N. Mathur and D.N. Joshi, JJ.
Rakesh - Petitioner
State of Rajashtan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 19 of 2000
Decided on 3-5-2000
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Anant Ram Nikub; Advocate.
For the Accused: Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Advocate.

In absence of evidence that finger prints were given by accused voluntarily, finger print expert evidence that chance finger print tallied with specimen prints could not read against accused.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 - Appellant convicted for murder of his elder brother - Prosecution case based upon circumstantial evidence of recovery of blood stained Kassi and mattress at instance of appellant and report of finger print expert that finger prints on handle of Kassi tallied with specimen finger prints of accused No evidence that finger print expert had compared chance print photographs with specimen finger prints taken before SDM - In absence of evidence that specimen finger prints were given voluntarily by appellant, it could not be read against him - Blood group of blood on clothes of appellant could not be determined - Recovery of kassi was effected from open terrace of house and as such evidence regarding recovery was to be recorded - Conviction Could not be sustained. (Paras 14 to 15)

       Result: Appeal allowed.


Catch Words :

Cases Referred:
Amarjit Singh v. State of U.P., 1998 SCC (Cri) 1609. (Para 16) - Referred By
Sukhvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 SCC (Cri) 1376. (Para 16) - Referred By
State v. Rakesh, Murder Reference No. 3/1999. (Para 26) - Referred By


Rakesh VS State of Rajashtan


N.N. Mathur. J. - This Murder Reference has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, by the judgment dated 14-12-1999 in Sessions Case No. 41/1998 for confirmation of death sentence awarded to the accused Rakesh. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant of the offence under Section 302, IPC on the charge of committing the murder of his elder brother Ramesh in the intervening night of 17th and 18th April, 1998, being proved. Accused had also preferred an appeal from jail challenging the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the trial court. Accused Rakesh is being represented by learned counsel Mr. J.S. Choudhary The Murder Reference and the Appeal are decided by common Judgment.


2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 18-4-1998 at 12.45 A.M., P.W. 3 Baldev submitted an F.I.R. Ex P.17 at the Police Station, Raisinghnagar, stating inter-alia that they are five brothers and they are' living separately. The wife of elder brother Krishna died about eighteen years back. He brought second wife and for last two years, he is residing at Loonkaransar. He has got two sons namely Ramesh and Rakesh. They are living in the village Likhmewala. The elder brother Ramesh (deceased) was married and the younger brother Rakesh accused is bachelor. In the night at above 11.30 while he was sleeping at his residence, Rakesh gave a call to him in raised voice. On enquiry, Rakesh disclosed that somebody has killed Ramesh. He alongwith his brother-in-law P.W. 4 Mani Ram rushed to the house of his brother Krishna and found dead body of Ramesh lying in the house. He suspected the act of Rakesh as relations between the two brothers were not cordial and there was a foot print at the entrance of the house, of a person not having thumb of the foot. Ramesh was not having quarrel with anybody in the village. On this information, police registered a case for the offence under Section and proceeded with the investigation. The police prepared the inquest and sent the dead body of Ramesh for post- mortem. The accused Rakesh was arrested on 18-4-1998. In pursuance of the information given by him, a blood stained kassi and mattress were recovered. After usual investigation, police laid charge sheet against the accused Rakesh for the offence under Section 302, IPC.

3. The accused Rakesh pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 14 witnesses and produced number of documents. The accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. stated that the evidence produced by the prosecution against him is false. The trial Court relying on the circumst

Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas