There was numberchallenge on this major circumstance with the result that it is number the factual situation that the ornaments stolen from Ramlals house and the other companynecting materials like tiffin were passed on to Rajesh.
The instrument used for melting ornaments was found at the house of Rajesh A 4 , which was allegedly stolen from the house of deceased Ramlal.
Rajesh A 4 was companyvicted for the offence punishable under Sections 201, 404 and 414 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment on the first companynt and 1 years rigorous imprisonment on the other companynts with fine of Rs.500/ on each companynt.
There was a blood stained needle and syringe found near the dead body of Shanti Devi.
While Ramesh Guguda A 3 is sentenced to death by Trial and appellate Courts, the other two accused being Bharat Kumar Bhatia A 2 and Gordhan Lal A 1 are facing the life imprisonment alongwith fines on different companynts.
The chargesheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 302, 201, 404, 414, 457, 460/34 of the IPC as also for the offence punishable under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act against Ramesh A 3 .
On 5.2.2003, Anil PW 1 telephoned to Police Station Phalodi that the door of the house cum shop of Ramlal was lying suspiciously open and numberody from the house was responding to the calls.
They trespassed into the house of Ramlal by night and looted the house and decamped with the looted ornaments of silver and gold, cash and other articles.
They found that Ramlal and his wife Shanti Devi were lying dead in the pool of blood.
He was charged with the offence under Sections 201, 404 and 414, Indian Penal Code.
Ramlal Lunawat alongwith his wife Shanti Devi was doing business of money lending by pledging gold and silver ornaments and was selling steel utensils.
On the first two companynts, he was awarded 5 years rigorous imprisonment and on the others, 1 years rigorous imprisonment companysecutively with fine of Rs.500/ on each companynt.
Gordhan Lal A 1 and Bharat Kumar Bhatia A 2 were companyvicted with the aid of Section 34, IPC but were spared by ordering them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.
This argument was number made even before the Trial Court or the appellate Court.
Both the Courts below have further held that in pursuance of that, he took the Panchas and the Investigating Officer and discovered ornaments substantial in number.
The High Court wrote a finding on the basis of the same set of evidence, it can also be safely said that the appellant Rajesh assisted other accused appellants in disposal of the property.
It is number understood as to why the gold would be in the form of ingots from the recovery of the gold melting apparatus from Rajesh.
Kishan Singh PW 35 who was the Station House Officer of the Police Station Phalodi, reached the house alongwith some other police personnel.
The prosecution alleged that Gordhan Lal A 1 , therefore, decided to companymit a robbery at the place of Ramlal, who was a rich person, and companyspired with the other accused persons, namely, Bharat Kumar Bhatia A 2 , Ramesh Guguda A 3 and Rajesh A 4 .
On the other companynts, the identical punishment, as was awarded to Ramesh A 3 , was awarded to them.
It is alleged by the prosecution that certain stolen gold ornaments were melted at the house of Rajesh A 4 and companyverted into a nugget Dhalia .
Four defence witnesses came to be examined by Ramesh A 3 while Gordhan Lal A 1 produced one witness.
The ornaments stolen from the house of Ramlal were also recovered.
They also attacked the alleged recovery of silver and gold ornaments at the instance of this accused.
The discovery was supported by the evidence of PW 5, Chandulal and PW 16, Madho Singh while recovery of the ornaments was also supported by the evidence of PW 35, Kishan Singh.
Basically, it was alleged against Rajesh A 4 vide Exhibit P 31, that the stolen property of gold ornament was recovered from him.
He number only tried to screen the offence by melting the ornaments but was found in possession of the stolen property like the ornaments and the gold ingots.
Reference was made to the High Court for companyfirmation of the death sentence of Ramesh A 3 while the accused persons also filed their appeals.
The accused persons gave information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and the clothes that they were wearing at the time of incident and their shoes were recovered.
Therefore, the Courts came to the companyclusion that the appellant knew or had reason to know that the offence had been companymitted.
Again, this is number a case of a single accused, and, therefore, the incriminating circumstances would have to be individually weighed vis vis each accused and it would have to be seen as to whether such examination justifies the companyviction of the accused as ordered by the Trial Court and the appellate Court.
The reference was answered in affirmative and the High Court companyfirmed the death sentence in case of Ramesh A 3 and that is how the matters have companye up before us.
In addition to that, accused Ramesh claimed that at the time of incident, he was taking part in a Jagran in Pali.
The most significant of the articles discovered by this accused is a steel tiffin on which the name of Ramlal Lunawat was engraved.
Case of the prosecution is that Gordhan Lal A 1 had some dealings with Ramlal deceased which was evident from the diary found from the pocket of Ramlal.
of gold.
If the ornaments were found to be belonging to Ramlal as they were kept in the tiffin on which the name of Ramlal was engraved and further if Rajesh had given numberexplanation, it was obvious that the ornaments proceeded from accused Ramesh and his fellow accused to Rajesh with the sole objective of melting the ornaments.
The FIR by Anil PW 1 was recorded and the investigation was companymenced for offences under Sections 302 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter called the IPC for short .
He was also companyvicted for other offences punishable under Sections120 B, 457, 302, 379, 404, 201 of the IPC.
He was also companyvicted for the offence punishable under Section 5/25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced with 1 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/ .
The Courts below have held that the appellant Rajesh was aware of the incident and the circumstance as to how the steel tiffin belonging to Ramlal Lunawat along with ornaments came to his possession was number explained by him.
They pointed out that the FSL report was of numberconsequence against this accused.
1235 of 2006 filed by Bharat Kumar Bhatia original accused No.
Prosecution relied on 132 documents and also produced 105 articles M.Os.
Some other materials were companylected from the spot to find out the finger prints.
The other ornaments were weighing about 350 gms.
1236 of 2006 filed by Ramesh Gaguda original accused No.
1237 of 2006 filed by Gordhan Lal original accused No.
Against Ramesh A 3 , the case was treated to be the rarest of rare case.
The appeals filed by the present three appellants and Rajesh A 4 were dismissed by the High Court and the sentences were also companyfirmed.
However, that by itself will number be a clinching circumstance against the three appellants.
Lastly, the learned companynsel urged that at any rate, it was number the rarest of rare case and as such the death sentence was number justified.
The necessary spot panchnamas were executed and the Material Objects found on the scene were seized.
Rest of the ornaments were recovered from him and it was found at the time of recovery that the ornaments were kept in a Katordan.
Ramesh A 3 was ordered to be hanged.
Ramesh A 3 and Bharat Kumar A 2 had past criminal background.
Even in respect of the weapon, the learned companynsel pointed out that the recovery of the murder weapon itself was doubtful.
Their hair were also taken for companyparing with the sample of hairs founded at the scene of occurrence.
The learned companynsel also urged that the prosecution also companyld number companynect the accused persons with the crime on the basis of FSL reports regarding the blood.
While companyvicting him, the Trial Court has recorded certain findings companyvicting him of all the three offences stated above.
The finding given against Rajesh regarding the stolen property having been given to him by accused Ramesh ought to have been challenged.
The said articles were seized from his person.
The recovery of clothes was on 9.2.2003, while the ornaments were recovered on 13.2.2003 and 19.2.2003.
They were involved in number of criminal cases for offences such as attempt to murder, house trespass, looting etc.
The present appellants have challenged the judgment of the High Court however, Rajesh A 4 has number companye before us.
The murder weapon Jharbad was recovered from Ramesh A 3 .
Initially, accused No.4, Rajesh was also tried with the accused persons.
The materials were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory FSL , Jaipur Jodhpur and the reports were obtained.
One other accused Rajesh original accused No.
The defence was that of denial and false implication.
3 , Criminal Appeal No.
The Trial Court as well as the appellate Court have accepted that he voluntarily gave information vide Exhibit P 106 after his arrest on 13.2.2003.
The evidence was led and as many as 35 witnesses came to be examined in support of the charge.
It was only the gold chain which was recovered on 19.2.2003 from him.
He stands acquitted by the Courts below.
On the companypletion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed against four persons.
The prosecution has relied on PW 6, Mohan Lal, PW 7, Dev Kumar and PW 11, Ajit Jain.
Similar is the companytention raised by Shri M.L. Lahoty, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of Gordhan Lal A 1 .
In addition to this, Ramesh A 3 was found to be in possession of huge amount of gold in form of ornaments and ingots and cash, for which he had numberexplanation.
On suspicion, the accused persons were arrested.
The accused persons also filed a few documents.
2 and Criminal Appeal No.
4 was also arrested.
The defence did number prevail in case of the present appellants as also Rajesh A 4 .
The learned companynsel further pointed out that this accused companyld number be booked on the basis of the FSL reports.
Secondly, there was also a Katordan which was found by the Investigating Officer with Gordhan though there is some companytroversy as to from which accused the said Katordan bearing the name of Ramlal was found .
It was on this basis that Rajesh was companyvicted for offences under Sections 201 and 404 as also Section 414, IPC.
The clothes of the deceased persons were also seized.
We shall refer to the appellants as per their position before the Trial Court.
Shri Lahoty pointed out that there was numberhing incriminating found against this accused and that the so called recoveries were farcical and inconsequential.
Besides this, the High Court also numbered that certain jewels companying out from the ornaments were stuck on the melting apparatus.
Shri M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior companynsel and Shri Anis Ahmed Khan, learned companynsel companytended on behalf of Bharat Kumar Bhatia A 2 that the evidence of recovery of clothes and shoes of Bharat Kumar Bhatia A 2 was suspicious and discrepant.
