Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.196  OF 2008   

STATE OF RAJASTHAN APPELLANT

VERSUS

SANJAY                      RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This  appeal is  directed against  the judgment  and order  

passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in Criminal Appeal  

No.662 of 2003, dated 24.02.2006.  By the impugned judgment and  

order, the High Court has reversed the findings and the conclusion  

reached by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.70 of 2001 dated  

13.09.2002.

2. The facts in brief are: The accused – Sanjay is a distant  

relative of the deceased who was aged about 10 years at the relevant  

date of the incident. The accused, on the other hand, was aged about  

24 years. On 16.10.2000, the deceased had gone near the cinema hall  

for the purpose of selling biscuits. It was a routine affair for the  

deceased to return home in and around 8:00 p.m.  It is when the  

deceased  did  not  return  home  within  the  anticipated  time,  the  

deceased’s father, the informant in this case had gone in search of  

the deceased.  While searching, the informant met P.W.10 who had  

informed him that he saw the deceased going along with the accused  

person.  However, the dead-body was recovered only on the next date.

3. On the information so lodged by the informant and after

Page 2

2

completion  of  the  investigation,  a  charge-sheet  had  been  filed  

against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian  

Penal Code, 1860 (“the IPC” for short).  Since the accused did not  

plead guilty, the trial had commenced before the learned Sessions  

Judge after committal of the case by the learned Magistrate.

4. In  the  Trial,  the  Prosecution  had  examined  nearly  14  

witnesses in support of its case and the defence had not examined  

any witnesses.   

5. The two star witnesses according to the prosecution are,  

one  Dinesh  (PW-10)  and  Mahesh  (PW-13).   According  to  the  

prosecution,  P.W.10  had  seen  the  deceased  going  along  with  the  

accused person.  P.W.13, also speaks to the effect that he saw the  

deceased talking to the accused person.  The other witness, namely,  

Nilam (P.W.6), the sister-in-law of the accused in her statement  

under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had stated  

that the accused had confessed to the commission of crime. However,  

the said witness had turned hostile at the time of the recording of  

the evidence.

6. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record  

has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case  

beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  and,  accordingly,  had  convicted  the  

accused  for  life  imprisonment  for  an  offence  under  Section  302  

I.P.C. and also had levied fine and, in default, to undergo further  

imprisonment.

Page 3

3

7. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence so passed  

by the Trial Court, the accused had filed an appeal before the High  

Court.  The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence on record  

and, in particular, the evidence of P.W. Nos.10 and 13,  has come to  

the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove  

its  case  and,  accordingly,  has  reversed  the  findings  and  the  

conclusions reached by the Trial Court.

8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by  

the High Court, the appellant –State is before us in this appeal.

9. With  the  able  assistance  of  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties  to  the  lis,  we  have  carefully  perused  the  evidence  of  

P.W.Nos.10 and 13 once over again.  As pointed out by the High  

Court,  there  exists  a  contradiction  in  the  statement  made  by  

P.W.No.10 in his examination-in-chief and in his cross-examination  

before the Trial Court.  To the same effect is the evidence of  

P.W.No.13. In view of total contradiction in their evidence, the  

High Court has dis-believed the evidence of these two witnesses for  

the purpose of the last seen theory of the prosecution.

10. We have also carefully analyzed the evidence of P.W.Nos.10  

and 13.  In our opinion, the High Court is justified in coming to  

the conclusion that based on the evidence of P.W.Nos.10 and 13, the  

chain of events leading to the commission of crime is not said to be  

complete and therefore the accused could not have been convicted by  

the Trial Court.

Page 4

4

11. After going through the entire judgment and order of the  

High Court as well as the Trial Court, we are of the considered  

opinion that the High Court has not committed any error whatsoever,  

which would call for our interference in this appeal.  Accordingly,  

while rejecting the appeal, we confirm the order passed by the High  

Court.

12.  The  fee  of  the  Ld.  amicus  curiae  is   assessed  at  Rs.  

7000/-.

Ordered accordingly.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (DIPAK MISRA)

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 19, 2013.