SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) THESE appeals arise out of the judgment dated June 24, 2000 of the learned Special Judge SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Jaipur whereby the three appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- Mahendra Singh and Ishaq @ Yusuf: + U/s. 302 IPc to undergo Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. U/s. 302/120b IPc to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. U/s. 201 IPc to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Babu Lal: + U/s. 302/120b IPc to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. U/s. 201/120b IPc to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) ACCUSATIONS that laid the foundation of the prosecution case demonstrate that the information was communicated on telephone on September 15, 1998 to Richhpal Singh, SHO Police Station Renwal (PW. 26), that a dead body was lying in Metha river. Richhpal Singh along with other Police Officials rushed to the spot and recovered a dead body covered with sand. First Information Report was lodged under Section 302 and 201 IPC and investigation commenced. Dead body was identified as of Chetan Verma who was missing since September 11, 1998. The appellants were found involved in commission of offence, they were arrested and charge sheet was filed against them. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge, SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Jaipur. Charges under Sections 302, 302/120-B, 201, 201/120b IPC and Section 3 (2) (5) SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were framed against the appellants who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 28 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned Trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. We have heard the rival submissions and closely scrutinised the material on record. The case of prosecution rests squarely on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn, have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from these circumstances. The circumstances highlighted to fasten the guilt of the appellants are as under:- (i) Death of deceased was homicidal. (ii) Deceased was last seen in the company of the accused appellants. (iii) Extra judicial confession of the offence made by the accused appellants before the witness. (iv) Relations between family members of deceased and sister of accused appellant Mahendra were strained and there was motive behind the murder. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that since the chain of circumstances could not be established the appellants were wrongly held guilty. The court below has not considered the statements of Madhu Agrawal (PW. 5) and Ram Dayal (PW. 3) in right perspective. According to Madhu Agrawal the deceased was seen in the company of appellant Babu Lal on September 10, 1998 at 8. 00 PM, whereas Ram Dayal deposed that on September 11, 1998 at 10. 00 AM the deceased left the house for school. There is nothing on record which could suggest that after the deceased left house, he remained with the appellants. It is further contended that the testimony of Amar Chand in regard to extra judicial confession is highly doubtful. When the alleged confession was made on September 13, 1998, then why Amar Chand kept mum till September 21, 1998. It is next contended that the prosecution could not prove motive to kill Chetan Verma. Litigation between sister of Mahendra Singh and the family members of the deceased did not have direct bearing with the murder of deceased.
(3.) PER contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended that chain of circumstances is complete and involvement of appellants in the guilt is fully established. HOMICIDAL DEATh In order to establish that the death of deceased was homicidal the prosecution examined Dr. Amar Singh Chaudhary (PW. 11), who along with Dr. Renu Agrawal performed autopsy on the dead body. As per post mortem report (Ex. P-12) the death of deceased Chetan Verma was caused due to asphyxia by throttling (by rope ). The testimony of Dr. Amar Singh could not be shattered in the cross examination. Thus the prosecution is able to establish that death of Chetan Verma was homicidal. LAST SEEn The prosecution examined Madhu Agrawal (PW. 5) and Dekha (PW. 7) to show that on September 10, 1998 around 8. 00 PM Chetan Verma and Babu Lal came to the house of Madhu Agarwal together, where they were planning to go somewhere. From the testimony of these witnesses it is established that deceased was in the company of appellant Babu Lal on September 10, 1998 around 8. 00 PM. But on the other hand Ram Dayal (PW. 3), uncle of deceased, deposed that Chetan Verma was very much in his house on September 11, 1998 till 10. 00 AM. and he left the house for school at 10. 00 AM on the said day. There is nothing on record to show that after Chetan Verma left the house for school he was seen in the company of appellants. EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSIOn ;