VIPIN KUMAR @ NEETU Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are related to same incident hence, they are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) THESE appeals under Section 374 Cr.P.C., have been filed against the judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror, Alwar whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:

(3.) THE contention of the present appellants is that there is no direct ocular evidence for the offence. The case rests on the circumstantial evidence, no specific motive has been established qua the appellants. Evidence of foot prints have been taken but link evidence is missing. Recoveries are false and could not connect the appellants with the crime and their further contention is that circumstances did not prove the chain of the incident and they are not compatible with the hypothesis of the guilt. Appellants have been implicated falsely hence they should be acquitted.