ANWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20 -8 -1976, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused appellant Anwar Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/ - In default of payment of fine the accused -appellant has been convicted to undergo three moths rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) ON 3rd April 1975 Shiv Narain, PW 1 father of the deceased, lodged the FIR at police station Karoli and submitted that he is suspecting the accused appeallant as the murderer of his son. He informed the police that the dead body is lying nearby the Tal. He also produced the letter Ex. P1 received by him on the very day at 9 a.m. After investigation a charge -sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge examined 18 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution has also produced 18 documents before the trial court. From the perusal of Ex. P. 18, post -mortem report it is clear that the case of death of the deceased Prem Chand is head injury sustained by him. There is no direct evidence in this case. The case is solely based on the circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge found the following circumstance against the appellant:

(3.) AS far as the testimony of PW 4 Kedar is concerned, he has only stated that accused Anwar came at his shop for the purpose of shaving and he wanted to call deceased Prem but he was not available at his residence, and as such he was instructed by the appellant to intimate Prem. He has not stated that Prem met Anwar any time. It is an admitted position that Prem deceased, and appellant were having some relations with each other and they used to move out together PW .1, Shiv Narain has stated in his statement that previously Prem was taken by Anwar Ali, the accused, out side the city and after some days they returned. This goes to show the intimacy of deceased and the appellant and to call a friend who is known cannot be taken into consideration unless otherwise the motive is proved nor the prosecution has tried to establish any motive. The evidence of PW 4 Kedar does not help the prosecution at all for this purpose. As far as the evidence and conduct of the accused appellant is concerned, PW 1 Shiv Narain, has stated that on 3rd April, 1975, he went at the residence of the accused Anwar and asked about Prem. He has further stated that Anwar Ali was shivering. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has discussed this point at length and has drawn a conclusion that the conduct of Anwar Ali is a link to establish the complicity of accused Anwar Ali. We have also gone through the statement of PW 1, Shiv Narain. He has stated that he went at the residence of the appellant and as soon as he entered the house he saw the accused appellant shivering. He has further stated that he told to the appellant that you have taken away the deceased earlier also and if you are having any address please let us know. The accused denied and said that let us go to Chulidhah and should inquire about Prem. Ram Khilari and accused then went to Chulidah and approached Nanhe Musalman. Nanhe told him that he is not in a position to say at this time. He will be able to fore -cast something about Prem after performing Namaj. This type of evidence is a weak type of evidence and also is not sufficient to connect the accused appellant with the commission of the crime. The next set of evidence relates to the letters Ex. P. 1, Ex. P. 3 and Ex. P. 8. Prosecution has produced two witnesses, namely, PW10, Syed Ahmed PW3 Jagan Singh to prove that these letters were written by them at the instance of the accused appellant, Anwar. It will be proper to reproduce one letter Ex. P. 1 for appreciating the other letters also. Ex. P. 1 letter reads as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........