Honble SINGH, J.–Rakesh Joshi, Radheyshyam, Mahesh Singh and Smt. Babli Devi (appellant herein) were put to trial before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track-2) Jaipur City, Jaipur who vide judgment dated November 6, 2004 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:

Mahesh Singh:

u/S. 302 IPC,

to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further suffer additional simple imprisonment for one year.

Rakesh Joshi, Radheyshyam and Smt. Babli :

u/S. 302/34 IPC,

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

Rakesh Joshi, Radheyshyam, Mahesh Singh and Smt. Babli:

u/S. 394/34 IPC,

to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer additional simple imprisonment for six months.

All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

(2). Briefly stated, a written report was lodged by Pooran Mal informant on February 20, 2002 at 12.30 P.M. at Police Station Vidhan Sabha, Jaipur, wherein it was reported that his wife Jayanti Jain, who was employed as computer operator in Bank of Baroda, Nehru Place, Jaipur, and used to reside at his house situated at Jyoti Nagar as it was near to his place of work while he (informant) himself generally used to stay back at his other house No. 90/125, Patel Marg, Mansarovar for the sake of convenience where he used to do computer job work. However, both of them could meet anytime, any where as per their convenience. Lastly, on (November 17, 2002) Sunday, they were together at their house at Jyoti Nagar upto 10 P.M. when he left for Mansarovar. Informant was informed by his wife that she was to go to Jodhpur with her sister on Monday (November 19, 2002). He then rang up to his wife on Monday at about 5.00 P.M. but there was no response and thus he thought that his wife might had gone to Jodhpur. Thereafter, on 20.2.2002 at 10.00 A.M. his son Deepak who had brought the key of Jyoti Nagar House, rang him up and asked him to reach Jyoti Nagar immediately. Deepak further informed that his mother was dead and the house was found ransacked. Apprehending murder of his wife, the informant lodged this report to the police. On receipt of the report, a case u/S. 302 IPC was registered and the investigation commenced. Panchanama of the dead body was prepared and autopsy on the dead body was got conducted, site map was prepared, accused persons were arrested, recoveries were made and after completing investigation, challan was filed.

(3). In due course, the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 2), Jaipur City Jaipur. Charges under sections 302, 302/23 and 394/34 IPC, were framed against the appellants who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as 34 witnesses. In the explanation under section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge after hearing final submissions, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove.

(4). We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and with their assistance, scanned the material on record. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that there is no direct evidence against the appellants and the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution pertaining to the recoveries of stolen articles as well as blood stained clothes does not provide for a complete chain of the circumstances which may lead to irresistible conclusion of guilt against appellants.

(5). It is true that in a case like the present where there is no direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence can be made the sole basis of conviction if it is of such a character, that every possibility except that of the guilt of the accused for the crime which has been committed has to be ruled out, and the only inference to which that evidence unerringly leads is that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document