Varun Chaudhary vs State Of Rajasthan

2) Facts giving rise to the appeals referred to above in a nutshell are as under:-

In the circumstances, Ajit Singh (P.W.11) had gone to make inquiry near the residence of Vasudev (P.W. 5), but in the meantime it was informed that body of the deceased was lying near Ricoh circle which was not quite far from the residence of the deceased. Incised wound on left side of chin and stab wounds were found on his body and it was found that the deceased died as somebody had attacked him. In the circumstances, First Information Report (Ext.P.15) was lodged around 2 a.m. and thereafter necessary investigation was made by the Investigation Officer (P.W. 26 ). In the course of investigation, Varun Chaudhary- Accused No.1, Sudhir @ Bunty -Accused no.2 and Himmat Singh @ Bobby -accused no.3 were arrested. 4 (3) It was the case of the prosecution that the afore- stated accused had committed the offence of murder by inflicting serious injuries upon the deceased. It was a case of circumstantial evidence as nobody had seen the commission of the offence. It was, however, recorded in the evidence that immediately after arrest of accused no.1 on 1st September, 2000, and arrest of accused no.2, a knife had been recovered from accused no.1 whereas blood-stained clothes of Himmat Singh, accused no.3 had been recovered. (4) The trial court had considered the facts and on the basis of evidence recorded, accused no.1 was found to be guilty of having committed an offence under Section 302 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default three months simple imprisonment whereas accused Nos. 2 and 3 were acquitted. (5) The Trial Court had considered the fact that a knife had been recovered from accused no.1 and in view of 5 the fact that incised wounds were found on the body of the deceased, it came to the conclusion that accused No.1 was guilty of the offence under the provisions of Section 302 of the IPC. The trial court considered the evidence of Pawan Kumar, Home Guard (P.W.3), who was on duty near the Ricoh Circle. He had seen three persons riding on a motor cycle around midnight. However, he could not identify the persons who were on the motor cycle.

(13) So far as the evidence, which pertains to the tyre marks of the motor cycle, which was alleged to have been used in the offence is concerned, they submitted that there was no evidence that the marks of the tyre had been compared with the marks which were found at the place of the offence. In fact there was nothing to show that tyre marks at the place of the offence and tyre marks found by FSL Report were same.

(16) For the aforestated reasons, they submitted that the order convicting the accused could not have been passed and, therefore, the appeals should be allowed and the accused should be acquitted.

(26) Due to the above stated facts, in our opinion, the conclusion reached by the courts below is not correct. On the basis of such scanty evidence, which is practically no evidence at all in the eyes of law, the courts below could not have passed the order of conviction. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the orders convicting the accused-appellants in both the appeals are not justified and, therefore, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The accused-appellants shall be released immediately, if not required in any other offence.

...........................................J (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) ........................................J. (ANIL R. DAVE) New Delhi October 29, 2010