KANTI LAL & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants, who are the brothers and have been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. and sentenced, inter alia, to life imprisonment by the judgment and order dated 30.4.2012 as passed in Sessions Case No. 56/2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No 3, Udaipur Headquarter Salumber, on the accusations of having killed their step brother Dhula and having buried dead body in a field near their house, have filed an appeal bearing number 454/2012 that has been admitted for consideration. The applicants have moved this application seeking suspension of execution of sentence awarded.

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicants has strenuously argued that in the present case, where there had been no eyewitness and the F.I.R. has been lodged after two months of the alleged incident, the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of events in relation to the circumstantial evidence so as to make out a case pointing only towards the guilt of the applicant. It is submitted that the dead body was exhumed after about two months and its state clearly ruled out the possibility of identification. The prosecution attempted to connect the applicants with the alleged recovery of the body of the deceased but then, failed to establish that the body was recovered only at the instance of the applicants. The learned counsel has further referred to the statements of Jagannath (PW-2) that the villagers had come to know about the dead body a day earlier and the police had been informed. The learned counsel submits that even from the statements of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Satyanarain (PW-17), it is not made out that the recovery was made at the instance of, or as per the information supplied by, the applicants. It is also submitted that the suggestions about extra-judicial confession had also been wholly uncertain; and the background aspects, of the attempt on the part of other family members to falsely implicate the applicants who had already been driven out of the village and were residing in Ahmedabad, could not have been ignored. The learned counsel submits that for several of the loopholes in the prosecution case, it cannot be said that the charges have been substantiated beyond reasonable doubt and in the given circumstances, execution of sentence awarded deserves to be suspended during the pendency of the appeal.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the application and submitted that the chain of circumstances as appearing on the record of the case are sufficient to sustain the finding of conviction against the applicants. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has clearly connected the applicants with the crime in question with reference to the recovery of the buried dead body at their instance and other surrounding factors and hence, the applicants do not deserve any indulgence.