KAILASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Sirohi Camp Abu Road in Sessions Case No.92/2002 dated 20.9.2003. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellant as under:-

(2.) THE prosecution was launched on the basis of a report Ex.P/16 lodged by Amra Ram, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Aamthala at Police Station Abu Road Sadar on 14.5.2001 at about 12:00 Noon. It was given out by the complainant that on 14.5.2001 at about 10:00 AM, he was at the bus stand Aamthala where, he heard that in the village Aamali Fali and Nopa Fali where three roads meet, in the bushes a dead body wearing pant shirt is lying. After having received this information, he alongwith Secretary of the Gram Panchayat Shri Virendra Vyas went on the site and saw that a person wearing blue pant and light blue coloured shirt and black sandals in foot was lying dead in the thorny bushes. It was expressed that this person was killed some time on 13.5.2001 and 14.5.2001 and has been placed here.

(3.) ARGUING the case of the accused persons, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the circumstances which have been held proved against the accused persons are not at all sufficient to give a finding of conviction. The circumstance held proved about availability of the dead body of driver Sadique at Aamali Fali and Nopa Fali on 14.5.2001, as per counsel for the appellants, is quite innocuous circumstance and i.e. of not much consequence so far as adjudication of the matter is concerned. The circumstance about the fact that Sadique died due to strangulation, is a benign circumstance for all the accused persons. It is empathetically submitted that PW-1 Kadar Khan, PW-2 Arif Mohd. and PW-4 Mayub, though identified accused Kailash and Umesh @ Udayram, but the identification so made is of no consequence in view of the fact that the accused persons were not kept under well. It is also asserted that the trial court itself has not relied upon trustworthiness of PW-1 Kadar Khan and PW-2 Arif Mohd., therefore, no part of their statements is required to be read against the accused persons. With regard to recovery made from the accused persons, it is stated that those have not been established.