Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)State Of Rajasthan vs Kashi Ram on 7 November, 2006
On a careful consideration of the evidence, we are of the opinion that the Trial Court has not arrived at a perverse or wholly erroneous finding in reaching a conclusion that there was insufficient material for connecting the accused-respondents with this offence. The Trial Court has held that no witnesses have seen the victim Pankaj going away in the company of the accused respondent at any stage. The Trial Court has further stated that the evidence of illicit relations, which has been belatedly raised can only cast a suspicion against the accused respondents but suspicion cannot take the place of proof. We also find that the informant, when he lodged the missing report on 10.3.2006, or thereafter when he made allegations to the S.S.P. on 22.4.2006 and 17.5.2006 and even when he made the application under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. on 1.9.2006, made no mention of these allegations of the accused respondent Mamta and accused respondent Lakhmi having illicit relations. Also the allegations of illicit relations between the two accused-respondents, even if true, would not have provided any motive to the accused-respondents Kunwar Pal and Amar Pal and Smt. Bala to be a party with Mamta and Lakhmi, if they had nefarious designs against the victim Pankaj. Moreover, from the mere allegation that Pankaj and Smt. Mamta ran away, we cannot arrive at an irresistible conclusion necessary in a case of circumstantial evidence that the accused persons must have caused the death of Pankaj or made him disappear. The burden under section 106 of the Evidence Act is cast, when a fact is especially within the knowledge of accused and he had to submit an explanation as to the whereabouts of the victim or as to how the victim has died. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, AIR 2007 SC 144 and Sathya Narayanan vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, JT 2012 (11) SC 57 are cases, where the dead body was found on the premises, where the accused-respondent used to reside and the case of Kashi Ram was also a case of murder of his wife. There the burden was cast on the accused as to how the death had been caused as the fact was especially within the knowledge of the accused. In the present case, it has come in evidence that Nawal and others after talking on the telephone with Smt. Mamta and her parents and on not getting any satisfactory answer about the whereabouts of Pankaj, visited her maternal house on 5.3.2006. After that Mamta, Kunwarpal and other accused persons searched for the victim, but he could not be found. Thereafter, at a very highly belated stage after six months, allegations of abduction have been made. We think that the chain of circumstances is too fragile to establish the fact that the accused-respondents have alone caused the death or disappearance of the victim. We have to keep in mind that this is an appeal against a judgement of acquittal and it cannot be said that the view taken by the Trial Judge is perverse or palpably erroneous. We find no merit in this application for leave to appeal under section 372 Cr. P.C. It is rejected. The Appeal is, accordingly, rejected.
Section 156 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
1