DHANKI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these appeals arising from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 28. 2. 2006, appellants Thavra and his wife Dhanki have been convicted of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default, to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment on the charge of murder of one Kalu. They have also been convicted of offence u/s. 201/34 IPC and sentenced to two years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default, to further undergo two months' S. I. The cause of murder is said to be the act of deceased Kalu, who alleged to have committed rape on appellant Mst. Dhanki.

(2.) THE prosecution case as disclosed during trial is that on 27. 2. 2005, a dead body was found on the bank of river viz; ``kotda Mahuda''. THE dead body was identified as that of one Kalu. THE information of the incident was given to the S. H. O. , Police Station, Nai. THE police registered a case for the offence u/ss. 302, 201 IPC and proceeded with investigation. During investigation, the police arrested appellants. After usual investigation, the police laid chargesheet against both of them for the offence u/ss. 302, 201/34 IPC. THE prosecution sought to prove the case relying on the following piece of circumstances: (i) Utterances of appellant Thavra to finish deceased Kalu for having committed rape on his wife on the preceding night; (ii) Recovery of blood stained ``kulhari'' from the possession of appellant Thavra; (iii) Recovery of torch of deceased from the possession of appellant Thavra; (iv) Non explanation of blood stains on the clothes of appellant Thavra; (v) Recovery of pair of shoes of deceased Kalu from the possession of appellant Dhanki; & (vi) Non explanation of presence of blood on the apparels of appellant Dhanki.

(3.) IT is trite law that when evidence against an accused person, particularly when he is charged with grave offence like murder, if it consists of only circumstances and not direct oral evidence, it must be such that on every reasonable hypothesis, the conclusion must be that the accused is guilty, no fantastic possibilities nor freak inferences but rational deductions which reasonable mind make from probative force of facts and circumstances. Keeping this in mind, to proceed with the first Circumstance, PW. 8 Vesa deposed that appellant Thavra visited his house a day before the incident. He purchased a bottle of liquor for Rs. 10/- from him. He consumed liquor with Shanker. While consuming liquor, he uttered that he would be killing Kalu as he had committed rape on his wife. After some time, Shanker and Thavra left his place. In the cross examination, he admitted that he did not disclose this fact to anybody. He also admitted in the cross examination that he was deposing in the court as per the decision taken in the village panchayat.