JUDGMENT
V.G. Palshikar, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed on March 31, 1995 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 12/92.
2. The incident giving rise to the present appeal occurred in the night intervening 2nd and 3rd December, 1988 when the body of constable Sardar Singh was recovered from the train between the stations of Suratgarh and Gajsinghpur. The constable was declared dead and, therefore, prosecution under Section 302 read with Section 120B, 353 read with Sections 120B and 224 read with Section 120B was commenced against the accused persons Jagir Singh and Satish Kumar alias Mangal Dutt who is absconding. After declaring Mangal Dutt absconding the trial proceeded against Jagir Singh wherein 26 witnesses were examined by the prosecution along with certain documentary evidence to prove its case that Jagir Singh was guilty of murder. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons Jagir Singh and Mangal Dutt were being carried by the police constable for attending their case at different courts at Anupgarh, Raisinghnagar, Suratgarh, Padampur etc. Constable Sardar Singh was accompanying accused Jagir Singh and Mangal Dutt who were entrusted to his custody. It is the case of the prosecution that while they were so travelling towards Karanpur that the accused persons conspired and killed Sardar Singh to make good their escape from the custody. The learned Additional Sessions Judge believing the evidence of the prosecution recorded the judgment of conviction as aforesaid and sentenced the accused Jagir Singh to imprisonment for life as aforesaid. It is this judgment of conviction which is assailed in this appeal by Shri M. K. Garg learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae for the accuscd. The learned counsel aisailed the judgment of the trial court on several grounds. According to him the entire case is liable to be disbelieved for the reason that it is fake and fabricated. According to the learned counsel it is not possible that only three persons were travel-ling in the compartment of a passenger train. No other passenger is travelling nor there is any evidence of independent and individual nature. There is, therefore, no case which can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. In effect it is a case of total denial by the accused and circumstantial evidence as led by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused and consequently the accused appellant deserves to be acquitted. Opposing the appeal it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the evidence of the police constables who had seen the accused and deceased boarding together the train and other circumstantial evidence is clinching. There is nothing missing and there is, therefore, no reason to doubt the finding by the learned Judge that the accused was guilty of the offence. We will examine these contentions and re-appreciate the evidence on record.
3. P.W. I Vijendra Kumar is the police constable who speaks of seeing the accused and the deceased together while they were travelling on a train to Karanpur. The witness saw them in the compartment and on the station. He has deposed that he left deceased Sardar Singh along with accused Mangal Dutt and Jagir Singh at Suratgarh court. There is nothing in the cross examination of this witness which will require his being disbelieved. The fact that the accused accompanied the police constable Sardar Singh to the Court at Suratgarh thus stands proved.
4. P.W. 2 Harphool Kumar is another police constable who fully corroborates the testimony of P.W. 1 Vijendra Kumar. He has seen the accused persons accompanied by Sardar Singh in the court at Suratgarh and he also witnessed the conspiral talks going on between Roop Ram, Jagir Singh and Mangal Dutt. He is also there-fore, a witness to the fact of accused being accompanied by deceased constable Sardar Singh. The evidence of P.W. I and P.W 2 corroborates on all substantial particulars the depositions of each other and thus proves the first event in the chain of circumstances, namely, the presence of the accused persons and the deceased in the court at Suratgarh.
5. P.W. 3 Bhima Ram is another police constable who heard that on 3 12-88 the accused Jagir Singh and Mangal Dutt have run away injuring Sardar Singh constable. He heard that the assault took place after the train departed from Suratgarh station. The deposition of this witness in the circumstances is wholly inconsequential.
6. To the similar effect is the evidence of P.W. 4 Gafoor Khan and P.W. 5 Mukhtiar Singh, who heard that Sardar Singh constable was assaulted by the accused who were accompanying him and who after assault ran away. None of them is an eye witness nor has any personal knowledge about the incident and they do not, therefore, further the case of the prosecution in any manner.
7. P.W. 6 Amanullah is a constable of G.R.P. and was on duty of checking trains in the night of 2nd December, 1988. When he was checking the train standing at Suratgarh Station he saw that third compartment from engine, a four seater compartment, was closed and he heard notice from inside the compartment and, therefore, required the occupants to open the door when he was told that the occupants are members of the staff. He then desired to see the members of the staff on which request the window of the compartment was opened and the witness saw one constable and two accused sitting in the compartment and the accused told the witness that they are going to Karanpur and the witness then proceeded to check the train further. When the train reached Karanpur the guard of the train came to the witness and told that a man is lying injured in compartment ‘D’. On reaching the compartment the witness saw a constable lying between the benches of the compartment injured and bleeding. His belt Number was 1115. The matter was then referred to Karanpur Police Station. The witness was then told by persons of Karanpur Police Station to take the injured constable to Gangangar. Accordingly he took him to Ganganagar station. This witness has deposed that when he entered the compartment at the instance of the guard he found that the accused persons are not there. He then proceeds to identify the accused in court as the person who was present in the compartment at Suratgarh. In his cross-examination the witness admits that no body complained of any quarrel in the train to him nor was any complaint by occupants of the A, B, C compartments of the same bogie regarding the struggle that may have taken place. The entire deposition of this witness thus proves that the accused were present in the compartment and were last seen with the deceased in the compartment. It is proved that they were not in the compartment and the injured was lying unconscious in the compartment. It is also proved that there was no one else in the compartment at that time. The prosecution has this by the evidence of this witness proved the second incident, namely, the assault on victim by the accused persons and he being lying unconscious where he was discovered by the witness P.W. 6 Amanullah.
8. P.W. 7 Teja Ram is yet another witness who saw the accused and the deceased travelling together to Suratgarh. The evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 thus stands further corroborated by the deposition of this witness.
9. Then there is evidence of P.W. 8 Hiralal who received the wireless message regarding injury caused to Sardarsingh constable. P.W. 9 Narendrapal is another witness who discovered the body of Sardar Singh and reported the discovery by wireless to the Police Station.
10. P.W. 10 Hari Singh is only a witness to prove the seizure of belt, tickets and spectacles from the person of deceased Sardar Singh which proves that Sardar Singh was travelling along with two persons for attending the court at Suratgarh, P.W. 11 Murlidhar proves the spot map, seizure memo for soil etc. in a compartment where the body was found. P.W. 12 Kishanlalis the person who recorded the first information report. P.W. 13 Hemraj is yet another witness who say deceased Sardar Singh lying injured in the train and despatched him to Ganganagar.
11. P.W. 14 Manohar Singh is the companion of P.W. 6 Amanullah and was oh duty of checking the compartments of the train when he saw the deceased in third compartment from engine in the compartment. He thus, corroborates the testimony of P.W. 6 Amanullah that the deceased and the accused were last seen together in the third compartment from engine going towards Karanpur.
12. P.W. 15 Chandra Prakash is the guard of the train who saw the deceased lying injured in the compartment and informed the police to contact Karanpur Police station and take further steps in the matter. He deposes to the effect that the injured was handed over to the hospital at Ganganagar in his presence. This witness is in-consequential and is mere repetition of what happened after the discovery of the injured per son. P. W. 16 Rajendra Sharan and P. W. 17 Surja Ram are the persons who know the accused and identified the accused persons. However they are no witness to any part of the incident and, therefore, are inconsequential. P. W. 18 Richpal Singh proves the panchnama of the dead body and thus proves the homicidal death of Sardar Singh constable. P.W.19 is the doctor who performed postmortem on the body of Sardar Singh constable and he thus proves the homicidal death of Sardar Singh constable. The prosecution has thus proved that Sardar Singh met homicial death.
13. The appreciation of the evidence so far will show that the prosecution has proved homicidal death of Sardar Singh and have proved the circumstances leading to his death in a violent manner. It has further proved that the accused were only persons last seen together with the deceased and the deceased was then alive. It is consequently the irresistible conclusion as was rightly arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that only the accused persons are responsible for the violent homicidal death of Sardar Singh. We are in respectful agreement wish the judgment of conviction as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. There is no missing link in the circumstances leading to (he death of Sardar Singh and consequently there is no error in the order of conviction as recorded by the learned Judge. The evidence of the investigating officer proves all the links and the investigation was conducted by him.
14. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record as aforesaid we are also of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the homicidal death of Sardar Singh constable was caused by the accused Jagir Singh as the circumstantial evidence proved by the prosecution leads only to such irresistible conclusion.
15. In this view of the matter, therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed.