IRSHAD ALIAS RISAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IRSHAD @ Risal, the appellant herein, has impugned the judgment dated January 30, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kishangarh (Ajmer), whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that the appellant personated himself as Rajendra Singh and came to the house of Rupendra Singh (since deceased ). Rupendra Singh believed that Rajendra Singh was the brother of his wife Rajesh Kanwar and took him on scooter to the house of his cousin brother Prahlad Singh. Appellant pretended to go to Jammu but on the pretext of stomach pain he remained in the house of Prahlad Singh and thereafter went to Bus-stand. In the Bus-stand around 4. 15 AM the appellant forced Rupendra Singh to go to Marble factory in search of his wrist watch. Rupendra Singh and the appellant together left the bus- stand on scooter and after about three hours dead body of Rupendra Singh was found lying near the small bridge of R. K. Road. Prahlad Singh lodged written report on May 17, 1999 at Police Station Madanganj where case under Section 302, 120b and 109 IPC was registered against Rajendra Singh and investigation commenced. The appellant and Rajesh Kanwar wife of the deceased were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kishangarh, who discharged Rajesh Kanwar of all the charges. The appellant who was charged under Section 302 IPC, denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 26 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. PC. , the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) THERE is no eye witness of the incident and the appellant has been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for proving the guilt of commission of offence under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution must lead evidence to connect all links in the chain so as to clearly point the guilt of the accused alone and nobody else. The Apex Court in Ramreddy vs. State of A. P. (JT 2005 (4) SC 16) indicated as under:- " It is now well settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. . . " IDENTIFICATION OF APPELLANT: