Nisha Gupta, JJ. - (1.) ALL these three appeals are related to same incident and arises of a common judgment hence, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. These appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 24.10.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake Distt. Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 17/2006 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Accused appellant Omshiv Pratap Singh @ Om Singh @ Banna Under Section 302/34 IPC: to undergo Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional six month S.I.; Accused appellant Sohan Singh @ Fauzi Under Section 302/34 IPC: to undergo Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000A and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional six month S.I.; Accused appellant Omshiv Pratap Singh @ Om Singh @ Banna Under Section 302/34 IPC: to undergo Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional six month S.I.; (All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently)
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that complainant Narendra Singh (PW/18) has lodged a written report Ex. P/27 at Police Station Jobner, District Jaipur on which FIR No. 60/2006 has been registered on 25.6.2006. It was stated in the First Information Report that on 25.6.2006 when informant Narendra Singh received a phone call from Vishnu Prakash at about 8.00 a.m. that he should come to Bhande Ke Balaji with having money with him and his brother Guman Singh has been beaten and his both knees have been fractured. On this information, Narendra Singh went at Bhande ke Balaji, there Datar Singh and Dhara Singh met him. Datar Singh told him that Jitu @ Ajitsingh, driver has told him that Guman Singh has been beaten near Pipali Nada by Qmsingh and Fauzi and they have broken his both legs. They all were in Jeep of Fauji. Thereafter, he along with Dara Singh and Datar Singh went in search of his brother near Dhinda Railway Station, they saw the dead body of Guman Singh, he was badly beaten and both his legs and hands were broken and he was dead. On this information, FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge -sheet against the present appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC was filed. The court below has framed charges against the appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. They denied the charges and claimed for trial. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined PW. 1 Hanif, PW. 2 Ajay Kumar, PW. 3 Kishan Lal, PW. 4 Madan Lal, PW. 5 Bajrang Singh, PW. 6 Mahendra Singh, PW. 7 Girdhari Singh, PW. 8 Vishnu Prakash, PW. 9 Jitendra Singh, PW. 10 Jabbar Singh, PW. 11 Shankar Singh, PW. 12 Dr. Hari Narayan Bajiya, PW. 13 Mukesh Kumar, PW. 14 Hanuman Das, PW. 15 Laxman, PW. 16 Ranveer Singh, PW. 17 Raghuveer Singh, PW. 18 Narendra Singh, PW. 19 Dhara Singh and PW. 20 Dharmendra Singh and documents Ex. P/1 to P/53 have been produced. Statements of accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence, no oral defence evidence has been produced but they relied upon Ex. D/1 to D/2. After conclusion of the trial, the present appellants have been convicted and sentenced, as referred above. Hence these appeals. The contention of the present appellants is that the whole prosecution story rests upon circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence. The main stand of the learned trial Court to base his conviction is on recovery of cloths of accused appellants and the deceased and iron rod, used for offence whereupon blood has been found and recoveries have been made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The settled proposition of law relating to circumstantial evidence is that in case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution should prove a complete chain of evidence and each and every piece of incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by cogent, reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances should be such which leaves no other hypothesis than the guilt of the accused. Here in the present case, the only evidence against the present appellants is that their blood stained cloths have been recovered and blood group on the cloths matched with the blood group of the deceased but admittedly, blood group of accused have not been ascertained, recovery of cloths is unreliable. Witness PW. 4 Madan Lal has not corroborated the fact of recovery and PW. 20 Dharmendra Singh is a designed witness, he is relative of deceased family. He is not the resident of the village. Datar Singh has been named in the First Information Report and has first saw the dead body but not been produced by the prosecution, blood group of accused persons have not been taken for matching. The prosecution has not defined the role of each accused person. No motive has been shown for the crime. PW. 1 Haneef who is driver of the jeep has not corroborated the prosecution story and specifically denied he fact that on the fateful day, Sohan Singh was not on the jeep hence the whole prosecution story is doubtful, chain of circumstances are not so complete to convict the present appellants. The court below has erred in his findings. Per contra, the contention of the Public Prosecutor is that on the instance of present appellants, blood stained cloths and iron rod have been recovered and blood stains on the clothes of appellants and deceased are of same blood group and this is sufficient evidence to connect the present appellants with the crime, hence there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.;