KHURSHID @ KHURSHED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The discovery of body of Memuna in the Jungles, the allegations of dowry demand, the recovery of blood stained clothes of the accused appellant, and his conviction under Sec. 302 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 6.11.2001, has brought the appellant before this Court. Vide judgment dated 6.11.2001, the appellant has been convicted of the aforementioned offence and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and has been imposed fined of Rs. 1,000.00, and to further undergo a sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 7.3.2000, Khurshid S/o Jormal, lodged a written report (Ex.P-11) at the Police Station Sadar in Alwar wherein he claimed that his sister Memuna was married to Khurshid S/o Jasmal about 14 years ago. (It is pertinent to mention that both the complainant and the accused appellant have the same name, namely Khurshid). After the marriage, Khurshid used to demand a motorcycle and money from his in-laws. Khurshid had abandoned his sister for the last three years. About 7-8 months back Khurshid's family had taken his sister back while promising that she will not be harassed any more. Since then his sister has been staying at her in-laws' place. Today around 9.00 P.M. one Juhru came to his village and informed him that his sister Memuna is missing since 12 O'clock in the afternoon. Thereupon he and one Sapat went by motorcycle to the village Kajakpur where his sister was married. There they were informed that the dead body of Memuna is lying in Jungle. When they went to the Jungle they discovered Memuna's dead body in the mustered fields. Her neck had been cut. When he inquired from the people one Nawab told him that the Memuna had been killed by Khurshid. One Sulli and one Rujdar is also involved in the said murder. On the basis of this report a formal F.I.R., (Ex.P-12) was chalked out for offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and the investigation commenced. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet for the said offence was submitted against the appellant. In order to support its case the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and submitted 26 documents. Although the defence did not examine any witness, it submitted a statement of Khurshid, the complainant, as a defence document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. Hence this appeal before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Biri Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. However, the chain of circumstances has conspicuous gaps. Therefore, the said chain is not complete, which would unerringly point to the guilt to the appellant. The only linking evidence against the appellant is the recovery of the alleged blood-stained clothes of the appellant upon his information and the discovery of human blood of Croup A on the said clothes. However, these links are insufficient to convict the appellant for offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C.