SHIV KUMAR SHARMA,J. - (1.) APPELLANT Ram Rai and his wife appellant Shanti Devi seek to quash the judgment dated June 16, 2000 of the learned Sessions Judge Jaipur District rendered in Sessions Case No. 87/1997 whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under: - Ram Rai: - Under Section 302 IPC to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/ in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Under Section 201 IPC to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Shanti Devi: Under Section 201/34 IPC to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) BRIEF facts are these: - On March 31, 1997 at 9.35 PM one Nanag Ram (P.W.5) informed the SHO Police Station Chaksu that a bag was floating in the well of Jatiji. The SHO rushed to the spot and got the bag out of the well. The bag contained a dead body which was identified as of Abdul Rashid. A written report thereafter was handed over by Mahboob to the SHO with the averments that on March 28, 1997 when he last saw Abdul Rashid, appellant Ram Rai was with him. The Police Station Chaksu registered case under section 302/201 IPC - and proceeded to investigate the case. Dead body was subjected to post mortem, statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded, the appellants were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed., In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Charges under Section s 302, 201, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC were framed against the appellants who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. Thereafter explanation of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. No defence witness was produced by the appellants. The learned Trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated above. We have heard the rival submissions and scanned the record.
(3.) THE case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the learned trial court found that the chain of circumstances was so complete that it did not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellants. According to the learned trial Judge the appellants were guilty for having committed the offence.;