SANDEEP @ KALU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgement dated 09.01.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.83/2009 by which the accused-appellants have been convicted for offence u/s.302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also for offence u/s.394/34 IPC and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Brief and relevant facts giving rise to the present appeals are that one Dharamveer (PW7) submitted a written report (Ex.P21) on 05.06.2009 at 11.00 PM to the SHO, Singhana, District Jhunjhunu to the effect that his son Raj Singh went from his Village Goth on 05.06.2009 at 11.00 AM for Chirawa, Jhunjhunu with Sayami Sehi on his motorcycle Bajaj XCD 125 Black Colour, No. RJ18-SA or SB 1006. While he was returning at about 9.00 or 9.30 PM on the same motorcycle to Village Goth, on the way between Goth and Bhaisawat, some unknown persons murdered him by causing injuries by knife and also took away his Bajaj motorcycle. The police, on the basis of the above report, registered the FIR no.143/2009 (Ex.P22) at 12.30 AM on 06.06.2009 at Police Station Singhana, District Jhunjhunu for offence under Sections 302 and 392 IPC. During investigation, the police arrested the accused-appellants and after concluding the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against all three accused persons. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused persons for offence under Sections 302 / 34 and 394 / 34 IPC. The accused persons denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and produced 42 documents, to prove its case. The defence examined one witness and exhibited 7 documents. The learned trial court on conclusion of the trial, convicted the accused appellants and sentenced them as stated above by impugned judgement dated 09.01.2012. Hence these appeals.

(3.) Shri A.K. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Mudita Sharma for accused-appellant Sandeep @ Kalu in appeal no.120/12 and Shri Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for accused- appellant Sandeep @ D.P. in appeal no.171/12 have argued that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the prosecution case hinges entirely on the circumstantial evidence. From the impugned judgment, it seems that the learned trial court even did not take care to go through the principle related to the circumstantial evidence and without considering the same, convicted the accused-appellants. Thus, in these circumstances, the conviction of the accused appellants cannot be sustained at all.