RAFEEK AHMED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these three appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 19.11.2004 passed learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur, whereby he has convicted and sentenced all the four accused appellants namely Rafeek Ahmed, Gulam Mohd., Raju alias Rajjak and Jakir Hussain Gauri alias Jakir Gauri of the offences u/ss.302, 455 & 394 IPC as under, therefore, they are being disposed-of by common judgment: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_188_LAWS(RAJ)7_2009_1.html</FRM> All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, all the four accused appellants were acquitted of the offence under Section 382 IPC.

(2.) Facts leading to these appeals are that on 8.5.2004, the complainant Usha Devi filed a written report Ex.P.14 before the S.H.O., Police Station, Nagaur that her house is situated at Soniwada Mohalla, Nagaur wherein her father-in-law, mother-inlaw and two daughters are residing. At the time of the incident, her father-in-law was alone and her mother-in-law and two daughters had gone somewhere to attend the marriage in their family and in their back some unknown persons tied up her father-in-law and inflicted injuries and also robbed certain golden and silver ornaments. It was also alleged that a cash amount of Rs.15,000/- was stolen from the box of her mother-in-law. Upon this report, the police registered a case and commenced investigation. Injured Paras Ram was admitted in the Government Hospital, Nagaur, but on the next day of the incident, he died, whereupon his post-mortem was conducted. The "baniyan" of deceased Paras Ram was recovered by the police vide Ex.P.20. All the four accused appellants were arrested on 17.05.2004 and on their information, the recoveries of ornaments were made. The "baniyan" of deceased Paras Ram, handkerchief and currency notes recovered from the accused were sent for chemical examination. The recovered articles were put to identification parade before the learned Magistrate. After investigation, all the accused appellants were chargesheeted under Sections 302, 394, 454, 380 & 411 read with Section 341 IPC. The case was committed to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur. After hearing the arguments on charge, all the four accused appellants were discharged under Sections 454, 380 and 411 IPC but charged under Sections 302, 394 and in alternative 382 and 455 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and produced 41 documents along with 24 articles. The statements of the accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They produced 3 witnesses in their defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge framed four issues and came to the conclusion that it was a homicidal death committed during robbery by the accused appellants.

(3.) While assailing the judgment of the learned trial court, it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused appellants that this is a case of no evidence except the recovery that has been made in pursuance to the information furnished by the two accused jointly at different times of the same ornaments. It has further been contended that all the circumstances which the learned trial court has considered about the identification of the accused and recovery of handkerchief are not at all sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of crime. According to them, the identification parade conducted by the learned Magistrate was also not proper, as the new articles were mixed with the articles said to have been stolen. According to them, when the case is not based on direct evidence, the circumstances should be established in such a manner that the chain of circumstances should lead to no other conclusion except the guilt of the accused.