9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er three accused were awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years each and a fine of ₹ 100/- and in default of the payment of fine to undergo further period of rigorous imprisonment for one month. The sentences awarded against the Appellants were directed to run concurrently. The Division Bench while upholding the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code modified the punishment so far as it related to be one under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code to the effect that the period already undergone would be sufficient in the interest of justice. Similarly, in respect of other three accused also while confirming the conviction against them under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code, the substantive sentence was modified to be one which was already undergone by them. Aggrieved against the same Appellant preferred this appeal. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution as projected before the Sessions Trial was that the father of P.W. 2 went to the house of the Appellant on 22.08.1997, that he had a sum of ₹ 300/- with him on that day, that he frequently used to visit the house of the Appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vely proved. Consequently, the sentences as described in the earlier part of the judgment were imposed. The Appellants preferred an appeal before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in which the impugned judgment came to be delivered as against which the Appellant has come forward with this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. Ravindra Bana, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent-State. Mr. Bana in his submissions contended that there was inordinate delay of 52 days in the registration of FIR and, therefore, the story of the prosecution was unbelievable. learned Counsel then contended that the postmortem report has not mentioned the cause of death and, therefore, death cannot be held to be one of murder. By referring to the alleged extra-judicial confession stated to have been made by the Appellant, learned Counsel contended that the Appellant stated to have used a kassi but the postmortem report did not reveal any injury on the body of the deceased and that no blood was also found on the kassi. It was also contended that the body of the deceased was exhumed only from a nearby place and not from the house of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1959 SC 18 and Wakil Nayak v. State of Bihar 1971 (3) SCC 778 in support of his submissions. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and having bestowed our serious consideration to the judgment impugned before us and other material papers, as it is a case of circumstantial evidence, we wish to quote the well settled principles laid down by this Court in various decisions which are to be applied in order to examine the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below while convicting the accused based on circumstantial evidence. The principles laid down in those decisions can be mentioned before finding out whether or not the conviction and sentence on the Appellant can be held to have been established as stated in the judgment of the High Court as well as that of the learned Trial Court. The principles can be set out as under: (i) The circumstances from which an interference of guilt is sought to be proved must be conjointly or firmly established. (ii) The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. (iii) The circumstances taken cumulatively must form a chain so complete that there is no escape from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious tests relating to the circumstantial evidence were applied there can be no difficulty in holding that the chain of circumstances had every definite link, namely, from the date the deceased was stated to have gone to the residence of Appellant and, thereafter, his death was discovered based on the information furnished by the Appellant herself pursuant to which the body of the deceased was recovered from a place which was adjacent to her house. In between 22.08.1997 and the date of recovery of the body of the deceased, the Appellant met P.W. 2 once at her residence and, thereafter, the Appellant herself approached P.W. 2 asking for a sum of ₹ 5000/- to enable her to get his father released from the criminal case. After 22.08.1997, having been known that the deceased had gone to the residence of Appellant and since he did not return back for about seven days, P.W. 2 in the natural course of events had gone to the residence of the Appellant to find out his whereabouts. This particular fact was spoken to by P.W. 1, the wife of the deceased and P.W. 2, the son of the deceased. The Trial Court has noted that the said version of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 was not in any manner dislodge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en we consider the submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant, according to learned Counsel there was inordinate delay of 52 days in the registration of the FIR and, therefore, the story of the prosecution was unbelievable. It is true that between 22.08.1997 and the date of the registration of the crime, there was a considerable delay. However, after the deceased went to the house of the Appellant i.e. on 22.08.1997 which happened to be his usual routine as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses in particular P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, no fault can be found in the conduct of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in having waited for a minimum period of a week for the deceased to return back. Thereafter, as rightly observed by the Courts below, it was the game plan of the Appellant in having misdirected P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, whereby believing her words that the deceased was involved in a criminal case relating to charas they were waiting for his arrival, as informed to them by the Appellant. It was quite natural that the wife of the deceased P.W. 1 who was dependent on her minor son P.W. 2, aged about 14 years was waiting in the fond hope that her husband would have been involved in the criminal case that to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. 13. P.W. 6 Kishan Lal an independent eye-witness confirmed the digging and the excavation made from where the dead body was exhumed. Apart from the watch, a pair of shoes was also recovered under Exhibit P-16. P.W. 11, another independent eye-witness, also confirmed the above factum and recovery of the dead body at the instance of the Appellant. Exhibit P-29 was the postmortem report prepared by P.W. 16 Dr. Om Prakash Mahayach along with P.W. 17 Dr. Sunil Kumar Kaushik and P.W. 18 Dr. Chander Bhan Midha. The articles which were recovered along with dead body, namely, wrist watch, pair of shoes, shirt, payajama and empty bag were all identified by P.W. 2, the son of the deceased. In the opinion of P.W. 16, the postmortem doctor, the death could be a murder as well as natural. Therefore, it is not, as if based on the postmortem certificate and the version of P.W. 16, the offence of murder can be ruled out. Since the dead body was recovered in a decomposed state, it was quite natural that the doctor could not specifically state as to the nature of injury on the body of the deceased. 14. Having regard to the clinching circumstances found proved against the Appellant with the u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
