SHARMA, J. - (1.) THOUGH the offence for which Sandeep Thakran and Pradeep Kumar, the appellants herein, have been charged, is gruesome and revolts the human conscience but it is to be seen whether the prosecution is able to bridge the gap between `may be true' and `must be true' by clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence before condemned the appellants guilty. The appellants who were placed on trial before learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Notes Cases), Jaipur City, Jaipur were convicted and sentenced as under:- U/s. 302 IPC : Each to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment. U/s. 394 IPC : Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1500/-, in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 201 IPC : Each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer two months rigorous imprisonment. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case is as under:- On September 03, 1999, Jeewan Singh, Sub Inspector, (PW-1) submitted a written report (Ex. P/2) at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur stating therein that he around 2 a. m. while patrolling in the jeep with Constable Mangal Chand reached near Shakti Stambh at Mangal Marg, found one person lying on the road having injuries on the neck, left temporal region and head caused by sharp edged weapon. THE person had already died. A case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was registered and investigation was taken up. Pocket diary, visiting card and Driving licence got recovered from the clothes worn by the deceased. In course of the investigation it was revealed that name of deceased was Satveer who resided in delhi and serving as driver on Maruti Car No. DL6ce/3962. THE I. O. asked all the nearby police stations to remain alert and got success in nabbing the appellants. Autopsy on the dead body was performed, Maruti Car got recovered, chance finger prints were taken up from the mirrors of the card and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge (Fake Currency Notes Cases) Jaipur City, Jaipur. Charges under Sections 302, 201 and 394 IPC were framed. THE appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 30 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence and examined one witness in defence. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. In the absence of any eye-witness to prove its case the prosecution relied upon the following s to connect the two appellants with the offences alleged against them:- (i) Satveer was driver of Maruti Car No. DL6ce/3962 which was hired by two persons aged 18-19 years on September 2, 1999 around 11 a. m. and all the three came from Delhi to Jaipur in the said card. (ii) Satveer was found dead near Kanodia College Jaipur at 2 a. m. on September 3, 1999 and his death was homicidal in nature. (iii) Maruti Car No. DL6ce/3962 found standing lonely at a distance of 2 k. m. from Manoharpur on Jaipur Delhi Highway, got seized on September 3, 1999. Sports of blood were seen inside and outside the Card. (iv) Appellants were arrested on September 3, 1999 and knives allegedly used in commission of offence got recovered at their instance. (v) At the time of arrest when the personal search of appellant Sandeep was effected, driving licence of deceased was found in the purse. Sandeep was holding a bag that contained a Tape-recorder. Handkerchief stained with blood also got recovered from his pocket. The clothes worn by Sandeep were also found stained with blood. (vi) Finger prints of appellants Sandeep and Pradeep were found on Maruti Card No. DL6ce/3962. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in proof of the above circumstances the trial Court held that it succeeded in establishing each of them and as according to the trial Court, those circumstances considered together unerringly pointed to the guilt of the appellants. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that Satveer met with a homicidal death at Jaipur in the night intervening September 2 and September 3, 1999. It is also not in dispute that Satveer was driver on Maruti Car No. DL6ce/3962 that was hired from Delhi by two persons aged about 19 years and Satveer came with those two persons to Jaipur. We, therefore, instead of dilating on the above aspect of the case, proceed to consider whether the findings of the learned trial Court that the prosecution succeeded in proving that each of the appellants had a role to play in the commission of the aforequoted crime, can be sustained or not. RECOVERY OF DRIVING LICENCE :
(3.) TO prove the role of the appellant Sandeep, the prosecution relied upon recovery memo (Ex. P/47) of driving licence of deceased Satveer found in the purpose of Sandeep at the time of his arrest. Strangely how the driving licence of deceased Satveer (which had already been recovered from the clothes worn by the deceased vide Ex. P/4 much prior to the arrest of Sandeep) could reach to the purse of appellant Sandeep. The prosecution is not able to explain as to how one driving licence could be found at two places. Recovery of driving license thus cannot be treated as incriminating piece of circumstantial evidence. FINGER PRINTS : The other incriminating circumstance on the basis of which trial Court upheld the conviction of appellants is that their finger prints were found on the mirrors of the Maruti car. From the evidence adduced in proof of above circumstance it appears that the Photographer visited the crime scene on September 3, 1999 and took five chance-prints from the mirrors of Maruti Car No. DL6ce/3962 and they were sent for comparison to the Finger Print Bureau. Opinion of Bureau (Ex. P/34) reads as under: " Chance print photographs marked A,b,c,d & E have been examined and compared with the specimen ten digit finger and palm prints of two persons sent. The result of examination and comparison is as under:- I. Chance print photograph marked D is similar and identical with the specimen right ring finger print photograph marked S of Pradeep Kumar. Both the prints are of whorl pattern and the following identical ridge characteristics are present at the same relative positions in both the prints:- 1. Ridge end upwards is the starting point. 2. Ridge and upwards on north west of point No. 1 with 5 ridges intervening. 3. Bifurcation downwards on north east of point No. 2. 4.Ridge end towards right on north east of point No. 3 with 1 ridge intervening. 5. Ridge end towards left on east of point No. 4. 6.Ridge end upwards on south east of point No. 5 with 3 ridge intervening. 7. Ridge end upwards on south west of point No. 6 with 2 ridges intervening. 8.Ridge and upwards on south west of point No. 7 with 2 ridges intervening. II. Chance print photograph marked C is similar and identical with the specimen left thumb print photograph marked SI of Sandeep Thakran. Following identical ridge characteristics are present at the same relative positions in both the prints:- 1. Ridge end towards left is the starting point. 2. Ridge end towards left on west of point No. 1. 3. Ridge end towards left on north west of point No. 2 with 1 ridge intervening. 4. Ridge end towards right on north west of point No. 3. 5. Ridge end towards right on north west of point No. 4 with 2 ridges intervening. 6. Ridge end upwards on north west of point No. 5 with 1 ridge intervening. 7. Bifurcation upwards on east of point No. 5. 8. Ridge end towards left on north east of point No. 7 with 1 ridge intervening. III. Chance print photograph marked A is similar and identical with the specimen left index finger print photograph marked S2 of Sandeep Thakran. Both the prints of tented Arch pattern & following identical ridge characteristics are present at the same relative positions in both the prints:- 1. Bifurcation downwards is the starting point. 2. Ridge and downwards on south east of point No. 1 with 4 ridges intervening. 3. Bifurcation upwards on south west of point No. 3 with 2 ridges intervening. 4. Bifurcation upwards on south west of point No. 3 with 1 ridge intervening. 5. Bifurcation towards left on south west of point No. 4 with 1 ridge intervening. 6. Ridge end towards left on north west of point No. 5 with 2 ridges intervening. 7. Bifurcation upwards on south west on point No. 6 with 1 ridge intervening. 8. Ridge end downwards on north east of point No. 7. IV. Chance print photograph marked B does not tally with the specimen left & right finger and palm prints of Pradeep Kumar and Sandeep Thakran. V. Chance print marked E is unfit for comparison, ridge details are not readable. " Shravan Singh (PW-21) Inspector Finger Prints Bureau, in his deposition stated that after Rajendra Sharma, Senior Photographer (PW-22) photographed the chance prints found on the Maruti Card No. DL6ce/3962, which was standing outside Manoharpur town, he had developed the said prints. ;