BADRI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, three in number, were indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Bundi in Sessions Case No. 314/2001. Learned Judge vide Judgment dated December 20, 2003 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- u/s. 302 IPC: Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. u/s. 201 IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer one month simple imprisonment. u/s. 120-B IPC: Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) ON September 1, 2000 stark named dead body of Shree Lal got recovered from machhli River by Police Station Dei District Bundi. A case under sections 302 and 201 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P. C. were recorded, dead body was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn and the appellants were arrested. ON completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Bundi. Charges under sections 302, 201 and 120b IPC were framed. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. Four witnesses in defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions observed that although there was no eye witness of the occurrence, the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the appellants by circumstantial evidence. Since the chain of circumstances was found complete, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as indicated above.

(3.) WE thus find that evidence of last seen adduced by the prosecution could not clinchingly fasten the guilt on the appellants.