JHALLUPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUKHCHEN Singh, a truck driver lost his worldy `sukhchen' (peace) and went to eternal peace, as he was found dead and his body was found lying on the road side near village Bamla. The face of dead body was found mutilated on one side on 6. 1. 2000 at about 9. 00 AM in the morning and report to this effect was lodged by Hari Singh, PW. 11 with police station Bapna, Distt. Baran. The written report Ex. P. 22 and FIR No. 7/2000 Ex. P. 23 are on record.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present appellant accused Jhallupal, co-driver of truck No. HR-38/d-9312 of which the deceased Sukhchen Singh was main driver and one Rampal, brother of appellant Jhallupal was Khallasi of that truck, both these persons were tried for offence under Secs. 302 & 201 read with Sec. 34 IPC by the learned trial Court and the learned Trial Court by the judgment under appeal dated 13. 8. 2003 acquitted the co-accused Rampal; whereas the present appellant was convicted for offence under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, and in default thereof, to further undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) THE basis on which the present accused appellant has been convicted by the trial Court is circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession. THE law relating to circumstantial evidence is well settled and to convict a person on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it must satisfy the following three tests:- (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. Circumstantial evidence means the evidence afforded not by the direct testimony of an eye witness to fact to be proved, but by the bearing upon that fact or other and subsidiary facts which are relied upon as inconsistent with any result other than truth of the principal facts. Circumstantial evidence is not an evidence direct to the point in issue e. g. the statement of a person that he saw another giving a fatal blow to the deceased, but evidence of various facts other than the fact in issue which are so associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances leading to an inference or presumption of the existence of the principal fact. THE circumstantial evidence should be like spider's web leaving no exit for the accused to slip away. THE various links in the chain, when taken in isolation, might not connect the accused with the commission of the crime but when taken together may unmistakably point out the guilt of the culprit.