SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 1 l -12 -89, passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirohi, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted accused -appellant Suresh Kumarfor the offence under Section 302, I.P.C, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) ACCUSED -appellant Suresh Kumar was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi, for committing the murder of his wife Smt. Manjula and daughter Kumari Meeku (aged about two years) in his house situated in village Padeev (district Sirohi) near about the Jain Festival in the year 1987 held in that village. Accused -appellant Suresh Kumar was, also, tried by the learned Sessions Judge for causing disappearance of evidence of the offence (offence under Section 201 I.P.C), i.e., the deadbodies of Smt. Manjula and Kumari Meeku, and for the dishonest misappropriation of the property (offence under Section 404 I.P.C.) possessed by deceased Smt. Manjula at the time of her death. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined thirty -two witnesses while the accused, in his defence, examined two witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted the accused of the offences under Sections 201 and 404 I.P.C. but convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., as stated above. Accused -appellant Suresh Kumar, aggrieved of the judgment dated 11 -12 -89, preferred D. B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 31 of 1990, challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. while the State has preferred D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1990 (the State v. Suresh Kumar) for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the accused from imprisonment for life to the capital punishrnent. The State, also, filed S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1990 (the State Versus Suresh Kumar) challenging the acquittal of the accused of the offences under Sections 201 and 404 I.P.C. but the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge for non -prosecution in the year 1991 and, therefore, the order of acquittal of the accused of the offences under Sections 201 and 404 I.P.C. becomes final.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for accused -appellant Suresh Kumar that the circumstances, on which reliance has been placed by the learned trial Court while convicting the accused -appellant, do not stand proved from the evidence produced by the prosecution and the learned lower Court committed an error in placing reliance over these circumstances. According to the learned counsel for accused -appellant Suresh Kumar, if all these circumstances are taken to be proved even then from these circumstances the conclusion of the guilt of the accused is not established beyond reasonable manner of doubt and the established facts are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and do not rule out the hypothesis of the innocence of the accused -appellant and, therefore, the accused -appellant was wrongly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court on the basis of these circumstances. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for accused -appellant Suresh Kumar that it is a cardinal principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that the circumstantial evidence must be fully established, from which there should be inevitable conclusion of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable manner of doubt and the facts should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused ruling -out any hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the accused -appellant has placed reliance over: Harendra Narain Singh v. State of Bihar ( : AIR 1991 SC 1842) : 1991 Cri LJ 2666 Babuda v. State of Rajasthan ( : AIR 1992 SC 2091) : 1992 Cri LJ 3451 and Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni v. State of Maharashtra ( : AIR 1993 SC 110) :1992 Cri LJ 4027. The learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Court below and submitted that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned trial Court, complete the chain of the circumstances and prove the case against the accused beyond a reasonable manner of doubt and excludes the hypothesis of the innocence of the accused and, therefore, these circumstantial evidence have been rightly believed by the learned trial Court. It has, also, been contended by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant that the present is a rarest of the rare cases in which the accused deserves the capital punishment and the learned lower Court was not justified in dealing accused Suresh Kumar leniently and awarding him the sentence only of imprisonment for life.