GAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE discovery of a dead body, the evidence of last seen, the discovery of an abandoned "jughad" (a truck like vehicle locally manufactured by the villagers) from the background of this appeal. THE appellants are challenging the judgment dated 11. 2. 2002, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC and has sentenced them as under:- Offence under Section 364 IPC : Life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and to further undergo a sentence of six months in default thereof. Offence under Section 302 IPC : = Life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and to further undergo a sentence of six months in default thereof. Offence under Section 201 IPC : = Seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and to further undergo a sentence of three months of simple imprisonment in default thereof.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that on 12. 10. 2000, one Sughad Singh lodged a report at Police Station Kumher (Ex. P. 17 ). In the report he claimed as under:- On 4. 10. 2000 around 12. 00 O' clock one Vasudev 2 Vasu S/o Samandar, by caste Jat, R/o Gangrol, presently residing at Hatt Mohalla, Nadbai and Dharmaveer S/o Dauji, by caste Jat, R/o Hatt Mohalla, Nadbai, along with a stranger whom they claimed was from the village of Vasu's daughter's in-laws, from village Phencherry, Police Station Mathura, whose name was given as Gajendra, these people came to my village Bhatavali and spoke to my son Mohan Singh. THEy asked him to transport their cow in his Kisan Kunj" (Jughad) to their village Phencherry. THEy agreed to pay Rs. 800/- for this work. But all this was done as a conspiracy to take Mohan Singh away. At that time, Phool Singh, Babulal, Brijendra Singh and Jagdish Mansingh of my village were there. Mohan singh went with these three persons to Nadbai to fetch the cow. Around 5. 00 O' clock in the evening, Pratap S/o Mohan Singh and Sughad Singh S/o Braja,saw Mohan Singh driving the jughad from Nadbai to Kumher village with these three persons. Since Mohan Singh did not return till 6. 10. 2000, I went to the houses of these three persons in Nadbai. But I could not find them there. THEir family members told us that these bad people (Badmash) couldn't be trusted. I got worried. I could not locate him anywhere. I, thus, returned to my village on 10. 10. 2000. On 11. 10. 2000, a meeting of the influential people of the villages, such as Brajendra Singh, Lakshman Singh, Prakash Chandra, Bhagwati, Shankar Singh, Vijay Singh, Phool Singh, from village Mahavali, and Badan Singh, Fateh Singh Sarpanch, Naval Singh, Basanti, Nathi, Nawab singh, Hukum Singh, from village Gangroli, was called at the house of Babulal, member of Nadbai panchayat. Man Singh, member of the panchayat promised to produce these three persons on 12. 10. 2000. But on 12. 10. 2000, Man Singh, the member, informed us that Ghamandi, the seller of animal fodder in Nadbai, is hiding these persons. THErefore, I am convinced that these three persons have killed Mohan Singh and have robbed him of the "kisan kunj". THE Kisan Kunj was a new one. THE Panchas told me to begin the legal proceeding, therefore I have come today to report without any delay.

(3.) MR. Arvind K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Relying on the principle governing case of circumstantial evidence, the learned counsel has argued that there are missing links in the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution. Although there is some evidence to prove that the deceased was last seen with the appellant in Rajasthan, but there is no evidence to prove his being with the appellant in U. P. , where his body was eventually discovered. Moreover, the motive for their alleged crime is conspicuously missing. Since the "jughad" was recovered almost after a month in a abandoned condition, the sale of the "jughad", as alleged by the prosecution, could not from the basis of the alleged crime. Absence of motive in a case of circumstantial evidence leaves a large chink in the prosecution story. Therefore, all the links do not point unerringly to the guilt of the accused persons.