DUNDA @ SIRAJUDDIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 25.9.2002 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) Kama, in Sessions Case No. 18/02, whereby Dunda @ Sirajuddin appellant herein, was convicted and sentenced as under :

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that a typed report addressed to Circle Officer, Kama (Bharatpur), was received by post at Police Station Pahadi, on 22.6.2001. The said report was made by Sahbuddin resident of Gaddi, Police Station Shergarh, District Mathura (U.P.), wherein it was reported that his brother Nasru was married with Mst. Sarium and for last ten years he used to reside in village Somka, Police Station, Pahadi, District Bharatpur, and was engaged with cattle trading. Nasru was missing from the village since 4.5.2000. So he along with his maternal cousin Raju went to meet Nasru at village Somka, his wife Mst. Sarium told them that Nasru was away for last 8-10 days and had left along with two persons on motor cycle but on search Nasru was not traceable. Aaain after two days, when she was approached by the informant and his brother Umar, they were told that Nasru had come on the preceding night and he stayed only for 20 minutes and left again with Rs. 4000/- without informing as to where he was going. Nasru was searched at the places of all relatives but he was not traceable. Mst. Sarium had illicit relations with Dunda resident of Somka, therefore, it was apprehended that Nasru could have been killed by them. It was also averred that an earlier report made to S.H.O. Pahadi was not acted upon. On the basis of the above report a case was registered under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. at Police Station, Pahadi and the investigation commenced. In the course of investigation, the dead body of Nasru was recovered from the well on the information of accused Dunda also Sirajuddin and Post Mortem of the dead body was got conducted. Necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded and challan was filed against the appellant as well as Mst. Sarium. In due course the case came up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg (Bharatpur). Mst. Sarium was discharged by the trial court, the appellant on being charge sheeted, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., recorded and in the explanation, the appellant stated that he was falsely implicated due to groupism against him.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and scanned the material produced before us. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the conviction on the ground that the alleged recovery of the dead body at the instance of appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant has been convicted on the basis of suspicion alone. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor controverted the above argument and supported the conviction recorded by the learned trial court.