Honble SHARMA, J.–So close was the trap to the nest that Kalu Ram was caught unaware and done to death. Lala Ram @ Jitendra, appellant herein, and his brother Chhote Lal were indicted for committing murder of Lala Ram before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Alwar, who vide judgment dated February 26, 2003 did not find the charge against Chhote Lal established and acquitted him. The appellant was however convicted and sentenced as under:-

U/s.302 IPC:

To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.

U/s.3/25 Arms Act:

To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.

Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2). The synopsis of the prosecution case can be narrated as follows:-

On December 19, 2001 around 2.30 PM while Kalu Ram (deceased) was at his home and his wife Suman was about to serve him lunch, Lala Ram (appellant) came on a motor cycle and persuaded Kalu Ram to immediately accompany him since there was some emergency. Kalu Ram leaving served food on the plate, accompanied Lala Ram. After a short while a boy of Vyas community came running and informed the wife of Kalu Ram that Kalu Ram was lying dead in the `Kothri (store room) of Lala Ram. Wife of Kalu Ram then rushed to the Kothri and found dead body of Kalu Ram in a pool of blood on the floor whereas Katta (country made pistol) allegedly used in commission of offence, was lying on the cot. Information of the incident was communicated to Mool Chand, brother of the deceased, who was posted as Constable at Police Line Alwar. Mool Chand reached to the Police Station Malakhera (Alwar) and submitted written report (Ex.P-8) to SHO at 5 PM. On that report case under section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body was performed, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused 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) Alwar. Charges under sections 302 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 23 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec.313 CrPC, the accused claimed innocence. Two witnesses in support of defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions while acquitting co-accused Chhote Lal convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.

(3). We have heard rival submissions and weighed the material on record. A look at the impugned judgment demonstrates that learned trial court while convicting the appellant has placed implicit reliance on the following circumstances:-

(i) Deceased was last seen alive in the company of appellant.

(ii) Within half an hour thereafter dead body of deceased was found lying in a pool of blood in the Kothri belonging to appellant and his brothers.

(iii) Appellant did not give any explanation as to at which point of time, prior to the death of deceased, he got himself detached from the deceased.

(iv) Appellant also did not explain as to at which place he took the deceased on Motor Cycle and what was such urgency which forced him to persuade the deceased to accompany him.

(4). Evidently, there is no ocular evidence and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in order to convict a person on circumstantial evidence the circumstances must be fully established and the chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistence with the innocence of the accused.

(5). Learned counsel for the appellant vigorously urged before us that the circumstances relied on by the prosecution have not been satisfactorily established and that in any event the circumstances said to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document