RAJU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, dated 19.11.1986 by which Raju appellant alone has been convicted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. The other two accused, namely Madan Lal and Jagdish were given the benefit of doubt and they were acquitted of the charge.

(2.) THE prosecution story as has been disclosed in the First Information Report Exhibit PE/3 by PW-2 Bahadur Ram, father of the deceased Vinod Kumar is that he alongwith his family resided in the Dhani situated outside the field in village Kullar and that he had gone to Abohar in the morning of 2-2-1986. On his return at about 2-30 P.M. in the evening he saw the appellant standing nearby his son at the Dhani and was saying, "Raju, let us go". Both the appellant and the deceased went to the village Kullar from the Dhani at about 2-30 P.M. At about 9.10 P.M. the appellant came to his Dhani and told him (PW Bahadur Ram) that his son Vinod Kumar was lying fallen unconscious near the flour mill after taking liquor. PW-2 alongwith his driver Gopi Ram reached the flour mill on a tractor where Budh Ram, Jit Ram and many other persons were present and found his son lying dead. The dead body was brought to the house in the village by PW-2 Bahadur Ram accompanied by Budh Ram Jit Ram and Gopi Ram. It is further stated in the FIR that after making inquiries it was learnt that Raja appellant, Madan Lal son of Lekh Ram and Jagdish Lal, son of Karam Chand barbar had taken liquor and meat in the house of Madan Lal and when his son Vinod Kumar started vomiting, the appellant and the other two aforementioned persons threw him near the flour mill. It was further stated that when Bahadur Ram PW-2 saw the dead body of his son at the flour mill, neither he saw the blanket nor the watch. However, in the morning the blanket and the watch were found lying near the flour mill situated near the house of Madan Lal. About the motive it was stated that two months before the occurrence his son Vinod Kumar deceased and Raja appellant had an altercation with each other over the snatching of the watch of the former. He (Bahadur Ram PW-2) therefore had a suspicion that the appellant and the other two accused (since acquitted) had done his son to death by administering something in the liquor.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the State and on going through the entire record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The entire prosecution case hinges on the circumstantial evidence and it has been held time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judicial pronouncements as well as by the other Hon'ble High Courts that in the case of circumstantial evidence before basing the conviction, it is necessary to establish by cogent, succinct and reliable evidence and that the circumstances relied upon must be such as cannot be explained on any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. In other words, circumstances must be of an incriminating character. All the proved circumstances must provide a complete chain, no link of which, must be missing and they must unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence.