SURENDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by way of special leave arises out of the following facts:

(2.) We also find that statement of PW 14 is equally uncertain. He was also closely related to the accused and the deceased and had tried to show that he was a witness to the motive. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he had seen all four accused sitting together outside the house of the deceased plotting out the murders but he has confronted with his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. where he had not given the names of the assailants. We also find that in the face of this very uncertain evidence it would have been incumbent on the prosecution to have put the Appellants before an identification parade. This was not done and it is the admitted case that both the Appellants were identified by the witnesses in Court for the first time during the course of the trial. Moreover, Surendra, Appellant was a resident of a village 70 kms away from the place of incident. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the last seen inspires no confidence.

(3.) We now come to the recoveries of the alleged murder weapons. The Appellants were arrested on the 11th of January, 2001 and the recoveries were made 2/3 days thereafter but the articles were sent to the laboratory on the 19th of March, 2001. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that as the evidence of last seen itself is unacceptable the recoveries by themselves would not make any difference. Moreover even if a false plea had been taken by the accused that by itself will not be enough to maintain their conviction and as the prosecution story itself suffers from glaring infirmities, the infirmities in the prosecution case cannot be filled up by a false plea of alibi. We are conscious of the fact that this is a case of double murder but in the absence of any cogent evidence, we are unable to sustain the conviction. We accordingly, allow both the appeals and set aside the orders of the trial court as well as the High Court and direct the acquittal of the Appellants.