ABDUL MAHMOOD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in the instant appeal have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default further RI for one month. The appellants have also been convicted for offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced RI for three years with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default, further RI for one month vide judgment dated 21.01.2003 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir, in Sessions Trial No. 172/2001.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that missing report was lodged by the PW-1 Abdul Sazzad on 14.03.2001 stating that deceased Anthony was missing since 20.12.2000 and thereafter his whereabouts were not know. On the missing report, entry was made in the Station diary and the matter was investigated. During the course of investigation, dead body of deceased was found in the hut situated in the field of appellant No. 1-Abdul Mahmood near Lilagar river bank (Lilagar Nadi). Accordingly inquest report Ex. P/3 was prepared and FIR was lodged on 21.03.2001 Ex. P/24. Based on the information collected during the course of investigation and on the basis of memorandum statement of appellant No. 1-Abdul Mahmood, charged-sheet was filed in the court of Fourth Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir and the matter was put to trial. 25 prosecution witnesses were examined, whereas, on behalf of defence, two witness were examined and after conclusion of trial, the Session Court vide impugned judgment dated 21.01.2003 held the appellants guilty of offence on the basis of circumstantial evidence and sentenced them as afore-mentioned in para-1 of this judgment leading to filing of this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that judgment of trial court is ignoring the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence. It has acted in a mechanical manner against the accused persons in convicting them for the offence charged against them irrespective of fact that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on all points. According to Counsel for the Appellants, when it is a charge under Section 302 IPC, the first foremost thing which the prosecution ought to have proved by leading cogent and clinching evidence was that death of deceased was homicidal in nature, which in the instant case has not been established by direct or indirect evidence. Thus, the findings of trial court on this count deserves to be interfered with and the order of conviction is liable to be set aside.