NANU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the material made available on record at the time of arguments. Instant application for suspension of sentence has been filed by the accused appellant who has been convicted for offence u/s. 302 IPC vide judgment dt. 21.11.2012.

(2.) MAIN thrust of the counsel for appellant is that the prosecution case is completely based on circumstantial evidence and all the independent witnesses PW 1 Shrawan Kumar, PW 2 Anwar, PW 4 Champa Lal and PW 7 Mahendra Kumar were declared hostile. As regards the last seen evidence there was statement of PW 10 Dilshad and as per prosecution story when the initial investigation was made and on the basis of inquest report Ex. P20 and written report Ex. P17 FIR was registered and despite the fact that Rajendra PW 9 and Mamraj PW 11 who were cousin brothers of deceased present in the hospital when the written report was made by Tara Chand PW 8 complainant brother of the deceased but either of them did not name the presence of the accused appellant. In addition to it counsel further submits that there was no motive behind the alleged crime if at all has been committed by the appellant and as regards the recovery made u/s. 27 of the Evidence Act of wallet of the deceased it was after four days of arrest of the appellant and there is no connecting evidence against the accused appellant for connecting him with the alleged crime but the learned trial judge has convicted him for the offence u/s. 302 IPC.

(3.) COUNSEL submits that motive is one of the salient factor which was missing and even if he was last seen that in itself would not consider to be sufficient to book the accused appellant for being convicted u/s. 302 IPC and as regards recovery is concerned, it is such a week evidence and in no manner could connect the accused appellant with the commission of crime.