AMARDEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22/08/2006 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer (Raj.) in Sessions Case No.26/2006, convicting and sentencing appellant - accused Amardeen under Sections 302 & 450 of IPC as under : -

(2.) In nutshell the prosecution case is that complainant Bhakhar Ram presented a F.I.R. before the Police Station, Jaisalmer on 16/5/2006 stating therein that his mother Kainku was residing at Gafur Bhatta, Jaisalmer, to look after the house, she was doing Majdoori and other had shifted to Mohangarh for Kheti and Majdoori, she returned Jaisalmer on 14/5/2006 and was healthy and well. On 16/5/2006, an information was given to them by thana Mohangarh that his mother was murdered by some unknown person, killing occurred on 15/5/2006 in the night. On arriving here, it could be known that she was badly beaten and her ornaments were stolen, get the culprits arrested.

(3.) Heard the arguments advanced, learned counsel for the appellant -accused has contended that the impugned judgment is not correct because alleged sole witness Mumtaj has not narrated correct story and her statements are full of contradictions since she has made vital improvements in Court statements and it is just not possible to hear by a passerby, which was allegedly being talked and negotiated between two individuals inside a nearby house, moreso allegedly of lascivious in nature and a male narrating to a female that satiate his lust and permit him to cohabit is also not possible. The totality of evidence discloses that PW 4 Mumtaj, the said passerby is not a gentle lady but a woman of easy virtue with whom, accused was having illicit relations and in order to get rid of him, she has concocted a false story and has not even said that the person jumping out of the house of the deceased in odd hours was having any stick or danda in his hand, whereas, such utterance has been there in Prachabayan, she even did not reveal, so called ocular observation timely to anybody. The story of prosecution allegedly disclosed by Mumtaj is nothing but a bundle of falsehood and the alleged recovery is also not trustworthy, because no independent or individual residing in the area of occurrence has been taken and shown to be a recovery witness. Alleged premises of recovery was also not in possession of the appellant -accused and there is no unbreakable link in the evidence, despite so the learned trial court has passed impugned judgment convicting appellant - accused, which is liable to be set aside and has further prayed to quash the impugned judgment after allowing the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant -accused has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014)85 ALLCC 264 and Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2014) 5 AD (SC) 10 and has argued to acquit the appellant, since the prosecution has not succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.