INTRODUCTION

Dayal Das v. State Of Rajasthan, a case pronounced by the Supreme Court of India on 22 February 2011, explores the intricacies of criminal jurisprudence with a particular emphasis on Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing the disappearance of evidence of an offense) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case is primarily concerned with the gruesome murder of the victim and the subsequent attempts by the accused to dispose of evidence. It emphasizes the significance of intent and culpability in the determination of criminal liability, as well as the role of evidence in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution’s case was contingent upon the chain of circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies. The interaction between forensic evidence, witness accounts, and the legal presumptions arising under criminal law was critical to this case. The judiciary was required to assess the reliability of the evidence presented, with a particular emphasis on the medical findings and the testimonies of individuals who claimed to have direct knowledge of the events.

The defense disputed the sufficiency of the evidence, contending that the prosecution failed to establish a direct connection between the accused and the crime. Additionally, they inquired about the procedural deficiencies in the investigation, with the intention of diminishing the evidentiary weight of the prosecution’s assertions.

In this case, the Supreme Court placed a substantial emphasis on the doctrine of “last seen,” which is frequently employed in cases that are primarily based on circumstantial evidence. The judgment underscored the necessity of corroborative evidence to overcome the gap between the accused’s last sighting with the deceased and the actual commission of the crime, despite the doctrine’s critical importance.

This case functions as a landmark in emphasizing the evidentiary thresholds necessary to maintain a conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. It also affirms the significance of a comprehensive examination of both direct and indirect evidence and the observance of procedural equity in the pursuit of justice. The judiciary’s nuanced approach to complex criminal matters is illustrated by the judgment, which strikes a balance between the legal rights of the accused and the imperative to provide justice to victims.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Parcha Bayan (Ext.34) of Bheru Lal, PW-12 was documented by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Clock Tower, Ajmer on 26.8.1979 at 11.30 a.m. in Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer. On 23.08.1979, at approximately 8:45 p.m., Hari Singh, Band Master, and Ram Niwas emerged from the Soda Lemon store owned by Dayal Das Sindhi, the appellant in this case, while he was standing outside the New Majestic Cinema, as per the Parcha Bayan. Both were acquainted with him (Bheru Lal). The establishment of the aforementioned Dayal Das Sindhi was the location where all of these individuals consumed liquor. In the establishment of Dayal Das Sindhi, they were observed consuming liquor, and Lal Chand Thelewala was also observed doing so. 

Bheru Lal fell unconscious and awoke the following morning to find himself in the hospital. He was informed that Lal Chand had passed away as a result of ingesting illicit liquor.
The Police Officer initiated an investigation and registered the First Information Report (“FIR”) on the premises of the Parcha Bayan. Following an investigation, it was determined that seven individuals, namely Lal Chand, Arjun, Bhagwan, Chaman Das, Dhanna, Jethanand, and Suresh Rawat, perished as a result of consuming illicit liquor. 

The appellant, Dayal Das, was convicted under Section 304 Part-II and Section 328 of the Indian Penal (IPC) Code and Section 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, following the trial of Sessions Case No.3/1980 on 7.8.1984. He was sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.4,000/- under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. Additionally, he was convicted and sentenced to three years of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3000/- under Section 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act. Nevertheless, the sentences were instructed to be executed simultaneously. 

The appellant, dissatisfied with the aforementioned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, filed an appeal with the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court has upheld the judgment of the Trial Court in the impugned judgment.

ISSUES RAISED

Did the deceased Lal Chand acquire unlawful liquor from the establishment of the appellant Dayal Das Sindhi, and was the consumption of that illicit liquor at the appellant’s shop the cause of Lal Chand’s death?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument on behalf of the Appellant

• Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, esteemed counsel representing the appellant as amicus curiae, contended that the rulings of both the Trial Court and the High Court are flawed, as the testimony of Bheru Lal, PW-12, has not been accurately interpreted and evaluated by any of the lower courts. 
• Mr. Goburdhan asserts that the testimony of PW-12 does not indicate that the deceased, Lal Chand, procured illicit liquor from Dayal Das Sindhi’s business. The statement indicates that he observed Lal Chand consuming alcohol in Dayal Das Sindhi’s business. Establishing a connection between the accused and the crime solely based on the evidence that Lal Chand was observed consuming alcohol at Dayal Das Sindhi’s establishment is challenging.

Argument on behalf of the Respondent

• The learned counsel representing the State of Rajasthan submitted that throughout Bheru Lal’s testimony, PW-12, there was no indication that the deceased, Lal Chand, procured illicit liquor from Dayal Das Sindhi’s establishment.

JUDGMENT

It is noteworthy that the other two witnesses, Hari Singh, PW-9, and Ram Niwas, PW-13, were hostile during the trial of this case. It is also relevant to note that the alcohol drunk by Lal Chand at the establishment of the appellant Dayal Das was not subjected to chemical analysis. The conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC is difficult to uphold solely based on the assertion of Bheru Lal, PW-12, that the deceased Lal Chand was consuming alcohol in Dayal Das Sindhi’s shop. A meticulous examination of Bheru Lal’s original statement, PW-12, reveals that both the Sessions Court and the High Court have misinterpreted and misunderstood his testimony, resulting in the appellant’s wrongful conviction.

Accordingly, the appellant’s conviction is annulled, and he is ordered to be released immediately unless needed for any other case.

CONCLUSION

In Dayal Das against the State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court rigorously scrutinized the prosecution’s dependence on circumstantial evidence, notably the “last seen” theory, which was crucial to the case. The Court underscored that for this theory to be definitive, it must be substantiated by a robust and uninterrupted chain of evidence that precludes alternative possibilities. The accused was reportedly the final one observed with the victim before the murder, and attempts were undertaken to dispose of the body to obscure the crime.

The prosecution produced medical and forensic evidence to determine the cause of death and connect it to the actions of the accused. The defense emphasized discrepancies in witness testimonies and procedural errors during the inquiry, contending that the prosecution did not dispel reasonable doubt concerning the accused’s involvement.

The Court examined whether the prosecution had met its evidentiary burden under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. It emphasized that the only circumstance of an accused being last seen with the victim does not inherently suggest culpability unless substantiated by further evidence, including motive, retrieval of the weapon, or the accused’s behavior following the crime. In this instance, although the medical findings supported the prosecution’s account, deficiencies in corroborative evidence and investigative flaws cast doubt on the case’s strength.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dayal Das vs State of Rajasthan is a significant precedent for issues concerning circumstantial evidence. It emphasizes the requirement for the prosecution to demonstrate a consistent and convincing sequence of events connecting the accused to the crime. The Court’s investigation revealed that compliance with procedural requirements and the assessment of evidence must uphold the utmost criteria to guarantee justice.

The ruling underscored that convictions under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC necessitate definitive evidence of intent, action, and concealment, allowing no room for alternative theories. This case emphasizes the judiciary’s responsibility to balance the rights of the accused with the necessity for accountability, so securing justice through the stringent application of legal principles.