BABUCHANDRARAY ALIAS PARIMAL CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 14/9/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short learned trial court) in Sessions Case No.25/2014 whereby, the accused-appellant (for short the appellant) has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that on 29/6/2014, Shri Mintudas (PW-2) submitted a written report (Ex.P12) with the Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur, wherein, it was stated that his cousin Smt Sadhna Das, a domestic helper at House No. A-6, Mahaveer Nagar, Jaipur for last about 15 years, was assassinated last night by some unknown person. Based thereupon, an FIR No. 451/2014 under Ss. 302 and 201 IPC came to be registered. After investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted under the aforesaid Sec. . The learned trial Court framed charge against him under Ss. 302 and 201 IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. After trial, he has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove.

(3.) Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has erred in recording his conviction based on conjectures and surmises only without appreciating that there was no legally admissible evidence available on record to connect him with the alleged offence. He submits that in this case based on circumstantial evidence, there is no evidence of 'last seen' and the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the complete and unbroken chain of events leading to only one conclusion of his guilt. Learned counsel submits that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, who were declared hostile, was wrongly relied upon by the learned trial Court to hold that the appellant knew the deceased and has committed the alleged offence. He further submits that the other two circumstances relied upon by the learned trial Court based on CCTV footage and marks of the slipper, were not reliable and trustworthy. With regard to CCTV footage, he submitted that indisputably, the CCTV was also available in the house where the deceased was found to be murdered but, the prosecution did not produce the same for no plausible reason. He contends that in the CCTV footage obtained from the Carvan Hotel situated in the vicinity of the place of incident, it is not reflected that he visited that place in the fateful night rather, the same shows presence of Shri Avni Ray-brother-in-law of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that moreover, neither the pen drive in which the CCTV footage was allegedly obtained nor, the compact disc in which the footage was copied from the pen drive, were part of the record. He asserts that even otherwise, this electronic evidence could not have been taken into consideration for want of the Certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Evidence Act. With regard to the finding of the learned trial Court connecting him with the offence alleged on the basis of foot mould, inviting attention of this Court towards the evidence available on record, learned counsel submits that firstly, the foot mould was not obtained in accordance with law; secondly, the mould so obtained from the site, was not sealed and thirdly, the slipper allegedly recovered on 29/7/2014 based on his disclosure statement, is stated to be deposited in the malkhana on 29/6/2014, i.e., a month before its seizure which is impossible. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed, the judgment impugned dtd. 14/9/2016 be quashed and set aside and he may be acquitted of the charge framed against him.