SHRI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.1.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh convicting the appellant of offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment to further undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.

(2.) Briefly stated that prosecution case is that on 10.8.1997 at about 9.30 p.m., PW 1 Malu Ram lodged an oral First Information Report at Police Station, Shri Dungargarh stating inter alia that for last 12 years, he was living separately from his father: His father deceased-Nimba Ram used to reside with his brother appellant-Shri Ram. The house is divided by a wall of (sic) feet height. The wife of Shri Ram had gone to her parents house about 6-7 days back. He had gone to the field in the morning. His wife was at the residence. At about 5.00 p.m. his brother Heera Ram informed him that his brother Shri Ram has killed Nimba Ram by inflicting Kulhadi blow on his head. It was also stated that incident was witnessed by PW 3 Kalu Ram. The went to the house and found his father Nimba Ram lying dead. The village people namely PW 6 Rameshwar Singh, Ramlal, Khetaram, Ridmal and Bhanwara had caught Shri Ram and tied him with a rope. On this information, police registered a case for offence under section 302 and proceeded with investigation. After usual investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the appellant for the said offence.

(3.) The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined 13 witnesses and produced certain documents. In his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. Most of the witnesses did not support the prosecution case and as such they were declared hostile. However, the learned Judge relying on the testimony of PW 10 Mst. Hasti Devi and the evidence of recovery of blood-stained Kulhadi found the charges levelled against the appellant proved. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced him in the manner noticed above.