MOHD. RAHIM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE fate of the appellant hinges upon the testimony of Shatrughan PW -3 for the reason Shatrughan claims to be an eye witness to the incident in which Shatrughan's friend Shyam Kumar suffered an untimely death. Apart from the testimony of Shatrughan which has been accepted by the learned Trial Judge the two other incriminating pieces of evidence used by the learned Trial Judge are the recovery of a knife Ex.P -1 pursuant to the disclosure statement made by appellant Mohd. Rahim which was opined to be the possible weapon of offence by Dr. B.N. Accharya PW -2 as also the recovery of blood stained shirts pursuant to the disclosure statements made by appellant Mohd. Rahim and appellant Mazibul Rehman which were opined to be stained with human blood of group 'B' i.e. the same blood group as that of the deceased vide reports Ex.PA and Ex.PB.

(2.) PERTAINING to the recoveries, as held in the decisions reported as : JT 2008 (1) SC 191 Mani v. State of Tamilnadu; : 1999 Cri LJ 265 Deva Singh v. State of Rajasthan; : AIR 1994 SC 110 Surjeet Singh v. State of Punjab;, AIR 1977 SC 1753 Narsin Bhai Haribhai Prajapati v. Chhatrasinh and Ors. and : AIR 1963 SC 1113 Prabhoo v. State of U.P., recovery of ordinary articles and blood stained clothes, though relevant, are weak evidence. This is our reason for observing in para 1 above that the fate of the appellants turns upon the testimony of Shatrughan PW -3.

(3.) WE may note at the outset that appellant Mohd. Rahim was admitted to bail vide order dated 18.10.2006 and as per the nominal roll pertaining to him, as on 12.10.2006 he had undergone an actual sentence of 5 years 3 month and 2 days and had earned a remission of 1 year 3 months and 20 days. Appellant Mazibul Rehman continues to be languishing in jail and as per nominal roll pertaining to him, as on 10.8.2009 he has undergone an actual sentence of 8 years and 29 days. He has earned remissions of 2 years 5 months and 10 days as on 10.8.2009.