SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While pressing this application it is submitted by learned Counsel that conviction of accused-applicant is based on circumstantial evidence but that is not framing a complete chain indicating only one conclusion about his definite involvement in the crime in-question. According to learned Counsel the incident is dated 19.9.2007 and the accused was arrested on 11.5.2008. Subsequent thereto at his instance an iron rod, axe and a torch were recovered. The axe is having bloodstains matching with the blood group of deceased but the blood roup of control soil is different. It is further submitted that the other recovered articles, those are, missing motor-cycle, iron-rod and torch were not having blood-stains and no material is available on record to connect those with the rime. It is asserted that the Trial Court heavily relied upon statements of PW-5 lari Ram and PW-6 Nathu Ram, who as a matter of fact, stated certain facts availed from one another person Khemdas, who was not produced in evidence.

(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the complainant opposed the application with the assertion that no explanation is given by the applicant with regard to availability of blood-stains matching of deceased at his Instance.

(3.) We have considered the arguments advanced and also examined the record.