Important Point – It is settled legal proposition that in a case of circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of events which would lead to a conclusion that the accused was the only person who could have committed the offence and none else.

G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, J.

The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 17.1.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Pali in Sessions Case No.31/2006, by which the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default further to undergo three years simple imprisonment and under Section 201 I.P.C. for seven years imprisonment and with a fine of Rs.500, in default, further to undergo one year’s simple imprisonment.

2. The allegations as mentioned in the FIR goes to reveal as under :-

jktLFkku ljdkj

dk;kZy; mi[k.M eftLVªsV] ikyh

Øekad dksVZ@06@1133

fnukad % 25@03@06

izfr &

Fkkuk vf/kdkjh]

iqfyl Fkkuk vkS|ksfxd {ks=] ikyh

fo”k; % exZ la[;k 4@06 fnukad 23@03@06 iqfyl Fkkuk vkS|ksfxd {ks= ikyh vUrxZr /kkjk 176 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk e`rdk Jherh ik;y iRuh HkS#flag jktiwr fuoklh loksZn; uxj ikyh ckcr~A

mijksDr fo”k; ds lEcU/k esa exZ la[;k 4@06 fnukad 23-03-06 iqfyl Fkkuk vkS|ksfxd {ks= ikyh vUrxZr /kkjk 176 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds izdj.k ds lEcU/k esa v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ }kjk ekSds ij igq¡p dj loksZn; uxj ikyh esa ?kVukLFky dk ekSdk eqvk;uk dj tkap vUrXkZr /kkjk 176 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr izkjEHk dh xbZA

tkap ds nkSjku exZ la[;k 4@06 fnukad 23@03@06 ds lEcU/k esa e`rdk Jherh ik;y iRuh HkS#flag tkfr jktiwr fuoklh loksZn; uxj ikyh dh QnZ lwjrgky] QnZ iapukek QnZ ekSdk ewfrZc dh xbZA ?kVukLFky dh QksVksxzkQh djokbZ x;hA e`rdk Ikk;y ds 'ko tyh gqbZ fLFkfr esa dejs ds Hkhrj njokts ds lkeus fpr ysVh gqbZ voLFkk esa ik;k x;kA ekSds ij e`rdk dk 'ko vR;kf/kd tyh gqbZ voLFkk esa gksus ds dkj.k ,oa ekSds ds gkykr dks ns[krs gq, e`rdk ds 'ko dk iksLVekVZe ekSds ij djokus ds fy, ckaxM+ fpfdRlky; ds MkDVjksa ds esfMdy cksMZ dk xBu dj 'ko dk iksLV ekVZe ekSds ij gh djok;k x;kA esfMdy cksMZ ds }kjk e`rdk ds 'ko dks iksLVekVZe gsrq egkRek xka/kh fpfdRlky; tks/kiqj jsQj djokus ij e`rdk ds 'ko dk egkRek xka/kh fpfdRlky; tks/kiqj ds esfMdy cksMZ }kjk iksLVekVZe djok;k x;kA ?kVukLFky ij xokgku Jherh jhpk iRuh ljnkj lqjthr flag tkfr jktiwr fuoklh loksZn; uxj ikyh rstflag oYn ?khlwflag tkfr jko.kk jktiwr fuoklh loksZn; uxj ikyh] xksiky oYn izHkqth tkfr czkg~e.k fuoklh loksZn; uxj ikyh ds c;kukr dyec) fd;s x;sA fnukad 25-03-06 dks Hkh xokg Jh vEckyky oYn Hkaojyky czkg~e.k fuoklh 889 jkbZdksa dh <k.kh ikyh ,oa Jh foØe flag oYn pqUuhyky tkfr jktiwr fuoklh loksZn; uxj ikyh ds c;ku dyec) fd, x,A

ekSds ds gkykr ,oa tkap ds nkSjku xokgku ds c;kukr ,oa ifjfLFkfrtU; gkykr dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu djus ij ;g ik;k x;k fd e`rdk Jherh Ikk;y dh 'kknh djhc 8&9 ekg iwoZ HkS#flag oYn dkuflag jktiwr lkfdu loksZn; uxj ikyh ds lkFk gqbZ FkhA e`rdk Jherh ik;y ds ifr HkS#flag ,oa mldh iRuh ik;y ds chp Hkaojh uke dh efgyk fd HkS#flag ds lkFk voS/k laca/kksa dks ysdj e`rdk Ikk;y ,oa mlds ifr HkS#flag ds chp eueqVko ,oa }s”krk gksus o bl fo”k; dks ysdj HkS#flag o ik;y ds chp >xM+k gksus dh tkudkjh /;ku esa ykbZ xbZ gSA ifjfLFkfrtU; gkykr ,oa xokgku ds dFkuksa ls e`rdk ik;y dh ekSr tykus vFkok tykus ds iwoZ mldh e`R;w gksuk tkap ds nkSjku rF; lkeus vk,a gSaA

pwafd ;g izdj.k ekSds ds gkykrksa ,oa izkjfEHkd c;kuksa ds vk/kkj ij e`rdk dh e`R;q LokHkkfod ugha gksdj gR;k dk ekeyk gksuk ik;k tkrk gS ftldk foLr`r vuqla/kku iqfyl }kjk fd;k tkuk esjh jk; esa mi;qDr gSA vr% ;g izdj.k vkidks fu;ekuqlkj foLr`r vuqla/kku djus ,oa vkxkeh dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, ewy dkxtkrksa lfgr izsf”kr gSA

Sd/-

vkseizdk'k tSu

mi[k.M

eftLVªsV] ikyh

3. Heard submission of both the sides, placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as rendered in Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. Palanisamy alias Selvan, (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 844, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the trial court has committed material illegality and perversity in passing the impugned judgment and has faulted in arriving at conclusion of guilt, there was no direct evidence, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the links relating thereto have not been properly connected, majority