NDLI: Sanjay Rajak Vs. The State of Bihar

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Acquittal of co-accused Identification of a person IPC s.364(A) Conviction and rigourous imprisonment for life Circumstantial evidence
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: s.364(A) – Conviction and rigourous imprisonment for life – Acquittal of co-accused by High Court – Prosecution case was that the co-accused kidnapped 6 years old child – In confessional statement, both the accused disclosed that after kidnapping the child, they killed him and buried the corpse in the bed of river – Both the accused were last seen together along with the victim – Police made no effort to make recovery of body – Trial court convicted both the accused on circumstantial evidence – High Court affirmed the conviction of appellant while acquitted the co-accused – On appeal, held: The classmate of the victim deposed that while they were standing at the gate of school, a man with his face covered approached the victim and told him that his father was calling him and that the victim recognized him and called him uncle – The evidence of the parents of the victim was to the effect that the co-accused had worked as a servant in their house earlier and being acquainted with co-accused, the child naturally must have gone along with him – They also deposed that a demand for ransom was made on phone by co-accused as they could recognize his voice – Several prosecution witnesses saw the appellant and co-accused with the victim on the day of occurrence – Recovery of victim’s bag was made from the house of the appellant which was identified by the father of the victim – No explanation was offered by the appellant about the said recoveries – In the facts and circumstances of the case, the failure of the police to recover the dead body was not of much consequence in the absence of any explanation by the appellant both with regard to the victim being last seen with him coupled with the recovery from his house of the belongings of the deceased – Therefore, interference with order of conviction not called for. Evidence: Identification of a person – Every individual has a distinctive style of speaking which makes identification by those acquainted possible – Identification of a known person by voice in darkness has been well recognized in criminal jurisprudence – Even if a person tries to camouflage his voice in one call, given the limitations of human nature there will be a tendency to state certain words or sentences in an inimitable style exposing the identity – In the instant case, High Court without considering these factors, erred in granting acquittal opining that no recorded voice sample was available – Criminal jurisprudence – Penal Code, 1860 – s.364(A). Evidence: Circumstantial evidence – Corpus delicti not found – It is not an invariable rule of criminal jurisprudence that the failure of the police to recover the corpus delecti will render the prosecution case doubtful entitling the accused to acquittal on benefit of doubt – It is only one of the relevant factors to be considered along with all other attendant facts and circumstances to arrive at a finding based on reasonability and probability based on normal human prudence and behavior – Penal Code, 1860 – s.364(A).Penal Code, 1860: s.364(A) – Conviction and rigourous imprisonment for life – Acquittal of co-accused by High Court – Prosecution case was that the co-accused kidnapped 6 years old child – In confessional statement, both the accused disclosed that after kidnapping the child, they killed him and buried the corpse in the bed of river – Both the accused were last seen together along with the victim – Police made no effort to make recovery of body – Trial court convicted both the accused on circumstantial evidence – High Court affirmed the conviction of appellant while acquitted the co-accused – On appeal, held: The classmate of the victim deposed that while they were standing at the gate of school, a man with his face covered approached the victim and told him that his father was calling him and that the victim recognized him and called him uncle – The evidence of the parents of the victim was to the effect that the co-accused had worked as a servant in their house earlier and being acquainted with co-accused, the child naturally must have gone along with him – They also deposed that a demand for ransom was made on phone by co-accused as they could recognize his voice – Several prosecution witnesses saw the appellant and co-accused with the victim on the day of occurrence – Recovery of victim’s bag was made from the house of the appellant which was identified by the father of the victim – No explanation was offered by the appellant about the said recoveries – In the facts and circumstances of the case, the failure of the police to recover the dead body was not of much consequence in the absence of any explanation by the appellant both with regard to the victim being last seen with him coupled with the recovery from his house of the belongings of the deceased – Therefore, interference with order of conviction not called for. Evidence: Identification of a person – Every individual has a distinctive style of speaking which makes identification by those acquainted possible – Identification of a known person by voice in darkness has been well recognized in criminal jurisprudence – Even if a person tries to camouflage his voice in one call, given the limitations of human nature there will be a tendency to state certain words or sentences in an inimitable style exposing the identity – In the instant case, High Court without considering these factors, erred in granting acquittal opining that no recorded voice sample was available – Criminal jurisprudence – Penal Code, 1860 – s.364(A). Evidence: Circumstantial evidence – Corpus delicti not found – It is not an invariable rule of criminal jurisprudence that the failure of the police to recover the corpus delecti will render the prosecution case doubtful entitling the accused to acquittal on benefit of doubt – It is only one of the relevant factors to be considered along with all other attendant facts and circumstances to arrive at a finding based on reasonability and probability based on normal human prudence and behavior – Penal Code, 1860 – s.364(A).
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 787
Petitioner	Sanjay Rajak
Respondent	The State Of Bihar
SCR	[2019] 9 S.C.R. 654
Judgement Date	2019-07-22
Case Number	1070

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Sanjay Rajak Vs. The State of Bihar

Please Log-in to view this content

Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others Vs. State of Gujarat Etc.

Sivakumar Vs. State By Inspector of Police

Sawal Das Vs. State of Bihar

Deep Narayan Chourasia Vs. State of Bihar

Usman Mian and Ors Vs. State of Bihar

Vijay Shankar Vs. State of Haryana

Indresh Kumar Vs. Ram Phal and Ors.

Ratan Gond Vs. The State of Bihar

Deonandan Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar.

Sanjay Rajak Vs. The State of Bihar

Sanjay Rajak Vs. The State of Bihar

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others Vs. State of Gujarat Etc.

Sivakumar Vs. State By Inspector of Police

Sawal Das Vs. State of Bihar

Deep Narayan Chourasia Vs. State of Bihar

Usman Mian and Ors Vs. State of Bihar

Vijay Shankar Vs. State of Haryana

Indresh Kumar Vs. Ram Phal and Ors.

Ratan Gond Vs. The State of Bihar

Deonandan Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar.

Sanjay Rajak Vs. The State of Bihar