RAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEAD body of Deep Chand, a boy of 14 years, was found lying partially buried in a yellow field of mustard. The appellant, who was seen with Deep Chand near the field, was placed on trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge Bayana (Bharatpur), who vide judgment dated September 29,2001 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 364 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer one month rigorous imprisonment. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. In the instant appeal preferred by the appellant, since there is no eye witness of the incident, we have to adjudge as to whether the circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is drawn are fully proved and conclusive in nature and whether the established facts are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant alone and totally inconsistent with his innocence.

(2.) THE prosecution case, based on the circumstantial evidence, is as under:- On February 20, 2000, informant Ved Ram (PW. 8) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) at Police Station Bayana stating therein that his relations with the appellant were inimical and just about a month ago the informant and the brother of appellant had a quarrel. On Feb. 19, 2000 around 6 PM the appellant took informant's son Deep Chand, aged 14 years, towards jungle and returned from the jungle alone after two hours. Amar Singh, Kishan and other villagers had seen the appellant and Deep Chand going towards jungle. On being enquired about Deep Chand, the appellant stated that Deep Chand never accompanied him, when the villagers repeatedly told him that they had seen the appellant and Deep Chand going together towards jungle, the appellant kept mum. THEreafter the informant and villagers started searching Deep Chand and his dead body was found partially burned in the field of Prabhu Jatav. On the basis of this report a case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body was performed, statements of witnesses were recorded, the appellant was 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 Bayana (Bharatpur ). Charges under Sections 302 and 364 IPC were framed. THE appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 12 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) PLACING strong reliance on the testimony of these witnesses learned trial Court drew the inference that it was the appellant who had killed Deep Chand. Finding of learned trial Judge, in our opinion, is based on probability. By probability is meant the likelihood of anything to be true, deduced from its conformity to our knowledge, observation and experience. It is well settled that circumstantial evidence must be of a conclusive nature and circumstances must not be capable of a duality of explanation. In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. Ratio indicated in Lakhanpal vs. State (AIR 1979 SC 1620) is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case wherein it was held that the mere fact that the accused and the deceased were together in the field prior to the occurrence does not by itself lead to irresistible inference that the accused must have murdered the deceased. ABSCONDING: