KASIM BEG ALIAS ANR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE alleged murder of Shakir @ Guddu, in the dead of the night, the discovery of his dead body in a Nala (culvert) the next morning, the testimony of a chance witness and splattering of circumstantial evidence led to the conviction of the appellants, Kasim Beg, (appellant No. 1, for short), Nafeesa Bano, (appellant No. 2, for short) and Ballu Khan (appellant No. 3, for short) for offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC. Vide judgment dated 2. 8. 2004, the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Kota, convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo two months' S. I. He also convicted them for offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced them to five years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, to undergo one month's S. I. Hence, these appeals before us. As both the appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment, the appeal are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 23. 6. 2003, Shabir Ali (PW. 1) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) to the police wherein he claimed that "on the night of 22. 6. 2003, his younger brother Shakir @ Guddu left his house, but never came back. In the morning, he was informed that there is a dead body, which is lying in the culvert. When he went there, he discovered that it was his brother's body. THEre were certain injury marks on the head and the ear of the dead body. Someone in the crowed told him that a gunny bag, which was tied with a rope, covered the head. THE body was lying half in water and half outside. People had pulled the body out of the water and had untied the gunny bag. THE gunny bag and the rope were lying near the body. He further claimed that somebody had killed his brother in the night. His maternal uncle, Abdul Naeem told him that around 10. 30 at night, he had seen Shakir going towards Kasim's house. He further claimed that he saw a trail of blood droplets from the place where the body was lying to Kasim's house, which is situated in the culvert itself, and ending there. He suspected that someone had killed his brother where the trial of blood droplets ended. He further suspected that the body had been dragged and dumped at the place where it was discovered. "

(3.) MR. Amarjeet Singh Narang, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that initially the Prosecution case rested solely on circumstantial evidence. However, in order to strengthen its case, the Prosecution introduced Shamim Bano, PW. 6, as an eyewitness. She is not only a chance witness, but is also an unreliable one. The Prosecution case rests on the testimony of the sole eyewitness. But, since she is not a witness of sterling worth, the conviction cannot be based on her testimony. He has further argued that the Prosecution evidence is self-contradictory. On the one hand, Shamim Bano claims that she has witnessed the murder committed by the three appellants, but on the other hand, PW. 3 Om Prakash claims that Nafeesa was at their house from 11 o'clock in the night to 5 clock in the morning. He has further contended that in case Shamim Bano's testimony is discarded, then only scattered circumstantial evidence exist, which do not point unerringly to the appellants' guilt. Hence, they cannot be convicted on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. Lastly, he has argued that the Prosecution case has too many loose ends; therefore, the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellants. And they should be acquitted. MR. Unus Khan, learned counsel for Kasim and Nafeesa has echoed MR. Narang's arguments. Therefore, they need not be repeated.