RAMNATH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This jail appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. preferred by the appellant/accused has been directed against a Judgment dated 25 th April 2000 in Special Sessions Trial No. 391/97 by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.), convicting the accused/appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of which he was directed to undergo three months' additional rigorous imprisonment, for commission of offence under Section 25 (1)(a) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500-/, in default of payment of which he was directed to suffer one month's additional rigorous imprisonment and lastly for commission of offence under Section 27 (1) of the Arms Act and sentencing him to suffer three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which he was directed to suffer one month's additional rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences mentioned above were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) In short, the facts of the case, as emerged from the evidence adduced before the trial Judge for just decision of this appeal, are that on 11 th June 1997 at around 5.30 a.m., accused Ramnath, son of Churaman, who happened to be nephew of deceased Rajaram went to the house of the complainant Babu Singh where deceased Rajaram was living. The accused and complainant took tea and thereafter complainant left to attend the natural call. In the meantime, hearing the sound like firing gunshot, the complainant rushed to the place and saw that the accused Ramnath caused Rajaram dead on the spot by his country-made pistole. The motive of the incident was that deceased Rajaram was issueless and the deceased started living with the complainant and accused Ramnath was apprehending that the deceased may deprive him of his rights in the property left by the deceased. It is stated that the deceased just few days before the incident deposited the amount in a fixed deposit and declared the complainant as his nominee. On the report of the complainant, an FIR was lodged at the Police Station Behat at 6-10 a.m. After registration of the crime, the investigation was set in motion. During investigation, the dead body of Rajaram was sent for postmortem. Spot map and seizure memo of the articles seized from the spot were prepared. The case-diary statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested on 5 th October 1997 and the weapon of crime (a countrymade pistol) was recovered. The sanction to prosecute the accused under Section 39 of the Arms Act was received. The weapon of crime including the articles recovered from the spot and received and seized from the Hospital were sent for chemical examination. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Criminal Court. On committal, the learned trial Judge after trial convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above, hence this appeal.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant is that he is an innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is not in accordance with the evidence adduced before the trial court and the law applicable to the case. There is no cogent evidence to prove the guilt against the accused. Therefore, on the basis of the above, it is prayed that by allowing the present appeal, the judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside.