RAM MURTI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant Ram Murti under Section 374 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 19.9.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby he was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and also convicted for offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.100/-. It was further directed that in case the appellant fails to make payment of fine, he shall have to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment of one month on each count. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that on 28.3.2002 a written report (Exhibit P-1) was submitted by PW.1 Ved Bhatt to the SHO, Police Station Sanganer stating therein that he had a house behind Panchayat Samiti, Sanganer. He lived in the house with his wife. Ram Murti, Amar Singh Rajpoot and Amar Singh Chhipa were his tenants. On 27.3.2002, he had to go to attend birthday party of his friend in Dana Pani restaurant. He and his wife got ready to go to the party at 9.15 PM. Before going to attend the party, he went to the room of Ram Murti and had one peg of dry gin and another peg was taken by Ram Murti. He then left for the party with his wife. At that time, in the room of Ram Murti, Rinku and another person, who was cooking rice, were also present. That person was wearing loongi and sandoz baniyan. He and his wife came back from the party at 11.15 PM. While entering into house, he noticed that the door of Ram Murti's room was lying open and lights were on. When he entered the room, the person, who was cooking rice, was lying upside down. He was apparently under the influence of liquor. Informant inquired from Neeraj, nephew of Ram Murti, who was in another room as to who this person was? Neeraj informed that he was Rajesh. He expressed his displeasure over the fact and stated that he did not like other persons staying in the room till late night. He asked Neeraj to convey to his uncle that he may visit him in the morning. He then went to his room with his wife for sleeping. When he got up at about 6.30 AM in the morning, his another tenant Amar Singh told that dead body of somebody was lying outside in the lane. When he went out, he saw dead body of Rajesh lying in drainage of the lane close to Panchayat Samiti. His throat had been cut by sharp edged weapon. Rajesh was the same person, whom he saw lying on the floor of Ram Murti's room. It was stated by the informant that he immediately went to the room of Ram Murti, who was not available. He saw blood stains on the floor of the room. He inquired from Neeraj how these blood stains were there, who told that since Rajesh did not repay his uncle Ram Murti a sum of Rs.1100/-, his uncle Ram Murti has murdered Rajesh. His uncle warned him not to divulge this information to anyone.

(3.) The prosecution filed challan against accused appellant Ram Murti alone for offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC. He was committed to the Court of Sessions to stand trial. Charges on both courts were framed against the accused appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 10 witnesses and also got 20 documents exhibited. The accused appellant in his defence exhibited only two documents and did not produce any witness. Accused-appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the matter and that witnesses are not telling the truth. The learned trial court, after conclusion of trial, convicted the accused appellant for the aforesaid offences and awarded sentences, as indicated herein above. Hence, this appeal.