Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict, Upholds Conviction for Robbery

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in a criminal case concerning murder and robbery charges. The appeal was filed by Raj Kumar @ Raju, challenging his conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) and Section 392 IPC (robbery). The judgment addressed the lack of conclusive evidence to uphold the murder charge while affirming the conviction for robbery.

Background of the Case

The appellant had been convicted by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000. He was also convicted under Section 411 IPC and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court upheld the murder conviction but modified the conviction under Section 411 IPC to Section 392 IPC, maintaining a one-year sentence for robbery.

Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence. The key witness, P.W.5, Ombir Singh, husband of the deceased, stated that the accused Raj Nirmal Gautam @ Raju was a tenant in their house. On the night of September 11, 1991, Raj Nirmal, along with Raj Kumar (appellant) and Dharmender alias Babloo, visited the house and played cards. The next morning, the accused left, and later that day, the deceased was found dead, with jewelry missing from the house.

Witnesses P.W.9 and P.W.21 corroborated that the accused had stayed in the house the previous night and were present in the neighborhood in the morning. Jewelry recovered from the accused was identified as belonging to the deceased.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court analyzed whether the evidence conclusively proved the accused’s involvement in murder. The Court noted:

“The question that confronts the court is whether on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances the case of the prosecution can be taken to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts.”

The Court found that:

• The prosecution’s case relied on circumstantial evidence without direct proof linking the accused to the murder.
• The recovery of stolen ornaments from the accused, though suspicious, did not conclusively establish their involvement in the murder.
• The last-seen theory presented by the prosecution left a significant time gap, allowing for the possibility that someone else committed the crime.

The Court relied on the precedent set in Sanwat Khan and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, where it was held that mere recovery of stolen property does not prove murder unless there is evidence linking both crimes as part of the same transaction.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

“In view of what has been found above, we do not see as to how the charge against the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC can be held to be proved. The learned trial court as well as the High Court, therefore, seems to have erred in holding the accused guilty for the said offence.”

The Court acquitted the accused of murder but upheld his conviction under Section 392 IPC. Since the appellant had already served the sentence for robbery, the Court ordered his immediate release.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain leading to the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The case serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in ensuring fair trial principles are upheld, even in serious criminal matters.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Raj Kumar @ Raju vs State (NCT of Delhi) Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 20-01-2017.pdf