KESHAV DASS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in these two appeal is to the judgment dated November 30, 2000 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge Kishangarh (Ajmer) whereby the four appellants were convicted and sentenced as under: Raju Ram @ Raju: u/s. 120-B IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. u/s. 302/34 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. u/s. 364 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. u/s. 394 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. Ranjit, Ramesh and Keshav Das: u/s. 120-B IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. u/s. 302/34 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. u/s. 364/34 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. u/s. 394 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) WE have heard rival submissions and weighed the evidence adduced at the trial.

(3.) APPLIED these lucid tests to the facts of the instant case we find that evidence adduced at the trial is qualitatively such that on every reasonable hypothesis the conclusion is that appellant Raju is guilty. The prosecution has established that during the interval between the time when Raju and Ghisi were last seen together and the time when Ghisi died, every circumstance was inconsistent with the innocence of appellant Raju. From the evidence it appears that Raju had conspired with the the other accused persons to rob the ornaments of Ghisi and gang rape her. Act of Raju in absconding from the scene for over a month also established his guilt and ruled out hypothesis of innocence. We however find ourselves unable to place reliance on the evidence of extra judicial confession made by accused Ranjeet because at the time when Ranjeet allegedly made confession he was in police custody. It is only against appellant Raju that various links have been satisfactorily made out and Raju did not offer any explanation consistent with his innocence, the absence of such explanation itself is an additional ink which complete the chain.