MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.4. 1989 passed by the learned AddI. Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, in Sessions case No.48/84, convicting the accused Madan Lal of an offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of, the accused attacked the order impugned on several grounds. It was submitted by her that the judgment of the learned AddI. Sessions Judge is unsustainable in law as it is based on surmises and conjectures not supported or warranted by the evidence on record. According to the learned counsel, the entire chain of circumstantial evidence was not proved and, therefore, conviction was not permissible in law. It was contended by the learned counsel that even if the entire evidence as led by the prosecution is accepted, it is impossible to come to a conclusion that it was the accused alone who caused intentional homicidal death of deceased. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused heavily relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, contended that the Supreme Court has, summarised the requirements which must be fulfilled for warranting or suspending convicting u/s 302, in case of circumstantial evidence:- The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established:

(3.) Relying on the above conditions spelt out by the Supreme Court of India, it was canvassed before us that the circumstances do not fulfil those conditions. The chain of evidence is not so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. The submission in nut-shell is that the prosecution must prove by circumstantial evidence that the act of killing must have been done by the accused and not might have been done by the accused. At the highest this case can be taken to mean that the murder might have been committed by the accused and, therefore, relying on this very judgment, the learned counsel prayed for acquittal.