ARAQUE LUTIFI ALIAS DAZY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant in this appeal has challenged the order of his conviction under Sections 302/392/201, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda. By the said order, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, read with Section 34 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for five years and one year under Sections 392 and 201 IPC respectively, it has further been directed that in view of the sentence passed under Section 302, read with 34 IPC, the latter sentences would not be operative. But, in case the same is set aside, varied or modified, the other sentences shall run consecutively.

(2.) THE factual matrix leading to this appeal is as follows : The appellant along with his two other associates stood prosecuted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 364/302/ 392/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in short 'IPC', for having kidnapped one Azad Khan @ Chunia, the driver of an Ambassador Car (Taxi) bearing registration No. ORC 2908 on 30th January, 1994, in consequence of which they committed murder of Chunia and robbery of the said Ambassador car from the possession of the deceased. It has been further stated that theyintentionally caused the death of Azad Khan @ Chunia by strangulation with the assistance of a rope and caused disappearance of evidence by throwing the deadbody in a ditch near Dadhimachhagadia stone quarry with the intention to screen themselves from the legal punishment in furtherance of their common intention. The appellant Afaque Lutifi alias Dazy was also a professional driver. He was driving a four wheeler in a travel agency at the material time. The deceased Azad Khan's elder brother Shamser Khan (P.W.16) owned an auto electric workshop at Haripur Road, Cuttack since 1993. P.W. 12 Abdul Sayeed was then working in the said auto electric work shop as an apprentice during 1994. The appellant Dazy used to bring the car, which he was driving, to the auto electric workshop of P.W. 16 at times for repair of dynamo, etc.

(3.) THE prosecution case mostly rests on circumstantial evidence. The cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding the case depending upon circumstantial evidence is that there must be a chain of events so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. It must be such, from which it could be inferred that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. Circumstantial evidence admits of no other rational explanation than that of the guilt of the accused. The link in the chain of events must be complete and it can be unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and exclude any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. Keeping the aforesaid principle in mind, let us now advert to the circumstances placed by the prosecution in order to bring the culpability against the appellant.