SALIM KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 04.08.1997 and the order on sentence dated 05.08.1997 delivered / passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 82/1996 arising out of FIR No. 36/1995 registered at Police Station Gokal Puri under Sections 302/363/364-A/34 IPC. Hence, the two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) By virtue of the impugned judgment dated 04.08.1997, the Appellants Salim Khan and Anil have been held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 363/34 IPC, 364-A/34IPC and 302/34 IPC. By virtue of the impugned order on sentence dated 05.08.1997, both the Appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ' 4000/- each in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. Insofar as the offence under Section 363/34 IPC is concerned, the Appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each and to pay a fine of ' 1000/- each and, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. With regard to the offence punishable under Section 364-A/34 IPC, the Appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of ' 5000/- by way of fine each and, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) Mr Sumeet Verma, the learned amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of both the Appellants, submitted that the prosecution case suffered from various infirmities. First of all, he submitted that this was, in any event, a case of circumstantial evidence in which the prosecution has to establish each of the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances so established must form a complete chain so as to lead only to the conclusion that it is the accused who have committed the crime and none other. He submitted that the only evidence, insofar as the Appellant Anil is concerned, is the recovery of a tiffin box (Exhibit P-1), wrist watch (Exhibit P-2) and a school bag (Exhibit P-3), which is alleged to have been made at the instance of the Appellant Anil from his jhuggi after he had surrendered before court on 04.02.1995. It was contended by the learned Counsel that the alleged recovery was made after two weeks of the incident which allegedly took place on 20.01.1995. He also submitted that during this period, the jhuggi belonging to Anil had already been searched by the police on 22.01.1995 itself and, therefore, the question of the alleged recovery having been made on 04.02.1995 at the instance of the Appellant Anil is not free from doubt.