SHAKOOR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The appellants Shakoor and Jagdish Prasad along with other co -accused indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer for having committing murder of Nathu. Vide judgment dated June 22, 2001, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted them under Sections 302 read with Section 120 -B and under Section 201 IPC and sentenced as under: - Under Section 302 r/w Section 120 -B IPC: -to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. Under Section 201 IPC: -to suffer three years' year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ - each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one and half months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) PUT briefly the prosecution case is that Daulat P. W. 9 intimated Police Station Pushkar on 6. 06. 1996 around 7. 15 A. M. over telephone that his father Nathu Kahar was lying dead in a dried well. The police arrived at the spot where the written report Ex. P. 2 was handed over by Daulat to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Pushkar. It was inter alia stated in the report that co -accused Bhanu (now dead) had enmity with Nathu and a day before the incident Bhanu had threatened Nathu to kill. On the basis of the said report, the case under Section 302/201 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, it was revealed to the I. O. that one Kailash Nath was also involved in the crime. Kailash Nath after his arrested agreed to testify against the appellants one Bhanu. He was therefore, tendered pardon and made approver. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and in due course the case came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer. Charges under Sections 302 read with Section 201 and under Section 120 -B IPC were framed against the appellants who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as 19 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. However, no witness was examined in defence. During the pendency of trial, co -accused Bhanu died, therefore, proceedings against him stood dropped. On hearing final submissions, the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above.

(3.) MR. Satish Purohit, learned Public Prosecutor urged that if the evidence of approver inspire confidence there is no legal necessity to seek corroboration. Reliance is placed on State of Tamil Nadu vs. Suresh (3), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that "law is not that the evidence of an accomplice deserves outright rejection if there is no corroboration. What is required is to adopt great circumspection and care when dealing with the evidence of an accomplice. Though there is no legal necessity to seek corroboration of accomplice's evidence it is desirable that Court seeks reassuring circumstances to satisfy the judicial conscience that the evidence is true. "