SAIFUDHIN @ TONY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (i) Does the evidence of recovery of MOs 2 and 3 (of gold ornaments allegedly of the deceased) under S.27 of the Evidence Act inspire confidence? (ii) Is it safe to found a verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence under S.302 IPC on such evidence of recovery alone? (iii) Are the accused entitled for the benefit of doubt in the facts and circumstances of the case?

(2.) THE appellants have been found guilty, convicted and sentenced under S.302 and S.392 IPC They face a sentence of imprisonment for life and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years under those sections respectively. Sentences of fine and default sentences have also been imposed.

(3.) INVESTIGATION commenced with Ext. P1 F.I statement lodged by PW 1, a neighbour. He found the deceased lying dead inside her house on the morning of 04/11/2001. In fact, Manoj a relative of the daughter in law of the deceased had come to the house of the deceased on that morning and it was he, who allegedly perceived that the deceased was dead. Investigation was initially conducted by PW 14. The same was completed by CW 35 by filing a final report / charge sheet before Court. The learned Magistrate after observing all legal formalities committed the case to the Court of Session and the Court of Session took cognizance of the offences. The appellants / accused denied the charges framed against them and thereupon the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence in support of its case. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 16 and proved Exts. P1 to P15. MOs 1 to 5 were also marked.