SANJAY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is well settled that in a criminal trial however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubts and the requirements of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. Although, the Court's conscience must be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when there are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in respect of offences alleged, it should be borne in mind that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial and the question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of evidence adduced in the case and the material placed on record. In the instant case we have to adjudge as to whether the charges made against the appellant have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the finding of the learned trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 302 and 447 IPC is based on reliable evidence.

(2.) THE prosecution case as unfolded during trial is that on February 2, 2000 at 1. 30 AM the informant Dhanna Lal (PW. 8) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 10) at Police Station Baran to the effect that on February 1, 2000 at 5. 30 PM while his elder son Chandra Mohan had been to their garden of Guava, Sanjay and Mahendra came armed with Gandasi and Dharia and inflicted blows on the person of Chandra Mohan. After given beating they fled away. On account of injuries Chandra Mohan died on the spot. On that report a case under Sections 447 and 302/34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation the police filed charge sheet against Sanjay and Purshottam and exonerated Mahendra. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Baran. Charges under Sections 447 and 302/34 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 16 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. One witness in defence was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 447 IPC: Impose a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer ten days simple imprisonment.

(3.) HAVING analysed the testimony of Dhanna Lal (PW. 8) and Sunabai (PW. 9) with particular reference to its trustworthiness and truthfulness, by a process of dispassionate judicial scrutiny we find their presence at the time of occurrence highly doubtful. On comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case and the entire evidence with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case we are of the view that the testimony of Dhanna Lal and Sunabai does not inspire confidence. We thus find that the prosecution has failed to establish charges under Sections 302 and 447 IPC against appellant Sanjay beyond reasonable doubt.