SHARMA, J. - (1.) DALVEER Singh, Vijay Singh and Arjun, the appellants herein, along with Mukesh were put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Bharatpur, who vide judgment dated June 5, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- DALVEER Singh, Vijay Singh and Arjun: U/s. 302 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. U/s. 394 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) IT is the prosecution case that informant Lal Singh (Pw. 1) on August 3, 1999 submitted a written report at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Bharatpur stating therein that on July 30, 1999 his driver Mohkam Singh proceeded to Mathura Mandi on Tractor No. RJ- 5/r6404 around 3 PM for selling 62 bags of mustard and 9 bags of grain. When Lal Singh reached Mathura Mandi in the morning of July 31, 1999 he came to know that Mohakam did not reach there. Lal Singh then went to the village of Mohakam but Mohakam did not reach his village too. Since Mohakam appeared to have misappropriated tractor trolly and crops, action be initiated against him. On that report a case under section 406 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation it was revealed by Satish and Mahaveer that in the tractor of Mohakam 5-6 persons also got alighted at village Rareh and had gone to Mathura. IT was also found that Dalveer Singh and Vijay Singh sold the crop of mustard and grain to one Tejveer. Dalveer Singh and Vijay Singh were brought to Police Station Raya where they confessed that they committed murder of Mohakam Singh and sold his crop. The accused were arrested. Dead body of Mohakam Singh got recovered and subjected to autopsy. Necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Bharatpur. Charges under sections 302, 394, 364a and 120b IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 27 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the accused 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 contentions raised before us and with the assistance of learned counsel perused the record. As per post mortem report (Ex. P-19) the position of skeleton was found as under:- 1. Both upper limbs were found separated united with scapula both sides with both humurous bone and both radius ulna found intact. The bones of both hands below wrist found missing. 2. In one position the skull and cervical upon 3rd vertebra found intact. Bones missing of lower jaw. 3.The bone 4th cervical vertebra to 7th bone found separated. 4. The thoracic vertebra with skeleton thorax & upto sacrum vertebra found mis another part found intact. 5. In another review pelvic, tibia and fibula bones found intact. The bones of both sides found missing. In the absence of any any eye witness to prove its case the prosecution relied upon the following circumstances to connect the appellants with the offence alleged against them:- (i) Skeleton was of Mohakam Singh. (ii) Appellants were last seen in the company of Mohakam Singh. (iii) Appellants made confession of their guilt. (iv) Recovery of skeleton was effected at the instance of the appellants. Learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment observed that the circumstances established by the prosecution are closely knitted that they are consistent only with the guilt of appellants and are totally inconsistent with their innocence. We have, therefore, to examine as to whether the inference of guilt of appellants can be drawn on the basis of incriminating facts and circumstances established at the trial. WHETHER SKELETON WAS OF MOHAKAM SInGH:
(3.) LEARNED counsel vociferously canvassed that the prosecution has failed to establish that the skeleton recovered by the investigating officer was of Mohakam Singh. In order to analyse this contention when we examine the material on record we find that as per the evidence of Prahlad Singh IO (Pw. 20) appellants had confessed to have committed murder of Tractor driver. On the basis of their disclosure statements Ex. P-23 and Ex. P- 24 skeleton got recovered which was identified as of Mohakam Singh by Daulat Ram @ Rajjo (Pw. 15 ). One Safi (Head gear) was found lying near the skeleton that was also identified by Daulat Ram @ Rajjo as belonging to Mohakam. Learned trial court placed reliance on the testimony of Daulat (Pw. 15) and held that the skeleton belonged to Mohakam Singh. Having closely scanned the testimony of Daulat we notice that although Daulat is the uncle of Mohakam Singh, they were not residing jointly in one house. When Mohakam Singh proceeded on tractor, Daulat had no occasion to meet him and to see his clothes. Despite the fact that Daulat did not see the clothes worn by Mohakam, he identified the skeleton as of Mohakam only on the basis of trouser and head gear. Daulat in his cross examination stated thus:- ******* The Investigating Officer did not make any attempt to get identify the clothes found on or near the skeleton by informant Lal Singh (Pw. 1) who employed Mohakam Singh as Driver on his tractor and who had seen Mohakam Singh proceeding on tractor on July 30, 1999. Lal Singh in his deposition did not give description of the clothes worn by Mohakam Singh on July 30, 1999 while he proceeded on tractor to Mathura Mandi. ;