SHARMA, J. - (1.) DEAD body of Sawant Ram was found in a dry well. According to prosecution Rajesh and Nihal Singh, appellants herein, committed murder of Sawant Ram by inflicting injury on his head and pushing him down into the well whereas defence has come up with the story that Sawant Ram in a drunken state himself accidentally slipped into the well and died. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Kishangarhbas District Alwar, however found the prosecution evidence trustworthy and vide judgment dated October 18, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- U/s. 302 IPC: Both to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. U/s. 201 IPC: Both to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) PRABHU Dayal (Pw. 2) a retired teacher came to know in the evening of October 15, 2001 that a dead body was lying in his well. He rushed to the police station Mundawar and handed over a written report (Ex. P-9 ). The police lifted the dead body out and it was identified as of Sawant Ram. Proceedings under section 174 Crpc were initiated. Inquest report (Ex. P-5) was drawn. Post Mortem on the dead body was performed. Clothes found on the dead body got seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-6 ). No blood was seen on the clothes. Chain of the wrist watch and Gutka `mahak' (Tobacco satches) also got recovered from the well. Bhoop Singh (Pw. 1) (brother of deceased) identified chain and Gutka as belonging to the deceased. It also appears that in the Inquest Report (Ex. P-5) it was opined that Sawant Ram died on account of injuries sustained by fall into the well. The memos were drawn in presence of Bhoop Singh who put his signatures on them. Thereafter on October 17, 2001 at 5. 30 PM another written report (Ex. P-1) was submitted by Bhoop Singh with the averments that on October 13, 2001 at 9. 00 AM Rajesh and Nihal Singh (appellants) came to his house and took Sanwat Ram with them. Thereafter Sanwat Ram did not return back. Prior to recovery of dead body Nihal Singh and his mother came to the house and on being enquired about Sawant Ram, Nihal informed that around 8. 30 PM on August 13 itself Sanwat Ram got separated near the electricity house of PRABHU Dayal Master. On October 15 dead body of Sanwat Ram was found in the well of PRABHU Dayal. The informant expressed in the report that Rajesh and Nihal had committed murder of Sanwat Ram. On that report a case under sections 302 and 201 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellants were arrested 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) Kishangarhbas District Alwar. Charges under sections 302 and 201 IPC were framed against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 19 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellants claimed innocence and stated that since they had sold a land to Rohtash Patwari, which situated near the complainant, the complainant became angry and implicated them falsely in the instant case. No witness in support of defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. Indisputably there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the case of prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. We have therefore to examine whether:- (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, have been cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the appellants; (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the appellants and none else. Mr. S. R. Bajwa, learned Senior Counsel canvassed that the appellants have been falsely implicated only on the basis of misplaced suspicion. According to learned counsel the so called incriminating circumstances have not been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts with the aid of clinching evidence. There is no evidence to prove motive of appellants to liquidate the deceased. The factum of the deceased leaving his house in the company of appellants cannot be said to be a clinching last seen circumstance as there is an interregnum of two days in between before the dead body was found. Otherwise also the circumstance of last seen cannot be the solitary basis of conviction under section 302 IPC. No recovery of any weapon or any belonging of deceased had been effected from appellants. It is further contended that the possibility of deceased having fallen in the well in an inebriated condition is strongly reflected from attending circumstances of the case. The injuries suffered on his person might have been received on account of the said fall in the well. Per contra B. N. Sandhu, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Vipul Jaiman learned counsel for the complainant supported the impugned judgment stating that in the instant case prosecution evidence must be held to have been proved as: (i) The appellants had gone to house of deceased as stated by Bhoop Singh (Pw. 1) and Sunita (Pw. 10 ). (ii) The deceased was last seen in the company of appellants as testified by Ratan Lal (Pw. 6) and Manoj (Pw. 8 ). (iii) Death of deceased was homicidal in nature as injury No. 1 sustained by the deceased was ante mortem in nature. We have pondered over the submissions and scanned the record. A look at the post mortem report (Ex. P-11) reveals that following injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. Fracture of Left temparo parietal region & Maxilla. 2. Fracture of Left occipital parietal region of skull. 3. Fracture of Right leg mid region of Tibia & Fibula & Tibia is protruded out. 4.Abrasion over chest below neck (Clavicular region) 10cm x 4cm 5. Abrasion with bruise left lumber region 6cm x 4cm 6. Bruise left Hypochondrial region 4cm x 4cm Out of the six injuries, only injury No. 1 was ante mortem. All other injuries were post mortem in nature.
(3.) FROM the testimony of Bhoop Singh (Pw. 1) and Sunita (Pw. 10) the prosecution has established that on October 13, 2001 the appellants had gone to the house of deceased and took him with them. Ratan Lal (Pw. 6) and Manoj (Pw. 8) deposed that they had seen appellants and deceased together on October 13, 2001 at 5 PM on the way near Jasai village. Deceased consumed liquor with them and around 7. 30 PM the deceased and appellants proceeded towards village. Dr. Hony Nischal (Pw. 16), who conducted autopsy on the dead body in his deposition stated that he had gone to the spot to perform autopsy. The dead body was lifted out from the well in his presence. The well was dry and an iron gurder got fitted inside the well. Electric motor also got installed in the well. There was no `munder' (parapet wall) around the well. According to Dr. Honey Nischal injury No. 1 could be caused by fall on the iron gurder ***dr. Nischal further stated that the person if fall on the iron gurder in a tilting position, then his clothes would not be stained with blood. According to Dr. Nischal if injury is inflicted on the head of a standing person, his clothes would definitely be stained with blood. Dr. Nischal further stated that the deceased had consumed liquor prior to his death. Rajendra Prasad (Pw. 19), who conducted investigation of the case also admitted that circle boundary of well did not have any wall and the surface of well was below the surface of the land *** ;