STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAM RATAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgment and record.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted, that the circumstances, against the accused, are (i) the deceased having been last seen in the company of the accused; (ii) recovery of the dead bodies of two deceased viz. Kalu Ram and Nimbudi on the information and at the instance of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and; (iii) recovery of the weapon of the offence being axe on the information and at the instance of Ram Ratan under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

(3.) We have considered the circumstances. Regarding the evidence of last seen, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of PW-4 and PW-19 being Nanu Ram and Bajrang Lal respectively, according to whom, deceased Kalu Ram was last seen with five persons being Naeem Khan, Ajay Makad, Pawan, Ram Ratan and Bhania, while the prosecution has filed the charges only against Ram Ratan. Thus, it cannot be said, that even according to the prosecution witnesses, the deceased was last seen only in the company of both the accused or either of the two accused-persons. Then so far as deceased Nimbudi is concerned, evidence of last seen comprises of statement of PW-6 Jabbar, who is non-else, but the brother of deceased, and according to him, Kalu, Ram Ratan and Monika came to his house and gave out, that they are going out for 5-7 days and shall return Nimbudi. It is also stated, that these persons came to his house on the day following Moharram. Learned Public Prosecutor informs that Moharram was on 31.1.2007. If this witness is connected with PW-4 and PW-19, it is clear thereafter, that Ram Ratan and Kalu Ram, in the company of many more persons and othe: accused,. Monika was not seen with them nor Nimbudi was seen as according to PW-4 and PW-19 they had seen the deceased Kalu Ram with five other persons on 6.2.2007. Then secondly, according to PW-6, along with Kalu Ram and Ram Ratan, one Monika was there, and he had not identified the accused present in the Court to be a lady, who had come to his house on that day. The statement of this witness was recorded on 21.9.2007, and the order-sheets of the Court recite that both the accused-persons were present in the Court on that day in judicial custody. Thus, in our opinion, this evidence of last seen does not inspire confidence.