MOHAMMED PARVEZ Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of which to undergo RI for one month and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of which to undergo RI for one month, by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, by judgment dated 5/8/2005, in Sessions Case No. 354 of 2004, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. Facts, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may briefly be stated thus:-

(2.) On committal of case to Court of Sessions, trial court vide Exh. 2, framed charge against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 376, 302, 201 and 404 of the IPC. The appellant denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined 10 witnesses.

(3.) The case against the appellant rests on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution, in order to succeed on the basis of circumstantial evidence, has to prove each and every circumstance on which it proposes to rely. The circumstances so proved should be of a conclusive nature i.e. they should have a definite tendency of implicating the accused. The circumstances so proved should form a complete chain which should exclude every hypothesis of the innocence of the accused, except the hypothesis sought to be proved by the prosecution. The circumstances so proved should be capable of one hypothesis and that is that the accused and the accused alone has committed the offence.