THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MANOJ YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Murder Reference No. 1/2010 has been made by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bikaner while convicting the accused Manoj Yadav for the offences under Sections 302 and 201, IPC and acquitting him from the charges under Sections 366 and 363/34. IPC. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Uttam Chand (PW-1) lodged a written report at the Police Station, Kotgate, Bikaner on 21-1-2006 alleging inter alia that he received a call from the Manager of the Bilkaner Guest House, Dhobi Mohalla, Bikaner, who informed the first informant that somebody call him in the Guest House saying that he was calling from the crime branch. Manoj Sharma has informed that the person named Rajesh Sharma who was living in the Guest House in the month of Dec. and was having two ladies with him, who probably murdered the lady and the dead body was lying in the house of Uttam Dhobi which was taken on rent. The first informant went to the Guest House and called back on the number from which call had been made. It was found that the call had been received from Riva M.P. The matter was thereafter reported to the police and the lock of the room of Kishan Lal Dhobi was broken and on search being made, stink of dead body was coining from the plastic bedding roll lying in the room. The bedding roll was brought to the hospital and on opening the dead body of a lady was found which was having injuries. The lady was being accompanied with another girl and a man who had taken the first floor of the house of Uttam Dhobi on rent on 10-12-2005 for monthly rent of Rs.1300.00. It was further alleged that the dead body was of one of the two females who was living in the room with her companion who murdered her and left the body in the room. It has been further alleged that the occupant of the room can be identified and that the man had given out his name to be Rajesh Sharma resident of Aakola. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 22/06 was registered and investigation commenced. After conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and the co-accused Jaishri wife of the appellant for the offences under Sections 366, 366/34, 302 and in alternative under Sections 302/34, 201 and in alternative under Sections 201/34, IPC. The charge-sheet was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, from where the same was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, who transferred the same to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bikaner. Charges were framed against accused-appellant Manoj Yadav as well as co-accused Jaishri for the aforesaid offences. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. At the trial, the prosecution produced as many as 23 witnesses in support of its case. During the course of trial, accused Jaishri expired while in judicial custody on 11-9-2009 and thus proceedings against her were dropped on 25-9-2009. In the statement under Sec. 313, Crimial P.C., the accused denied the allegations of the prosecution but did not lead any defence. At the conclusion of trial, learned trial Court acquitted the appellant Manoj Yadav from the charge under Sec. 366, Penal Code and has proceeded to convict the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 201, Penal Code and has sentenced the appellant to five year's R.I. on count of Sec. 201, Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 300.00 and in default thereof, to further undergo three months imprisonment and on the count of Sec. 302, IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to death.

(2.) Murder Reference No. 1/2010 has been made by the learned trial Judge seeking confirmation of the death sentence, while Jail Appeal No. 26/2010 has been filed by the appellant from the jail, whereas Appeal No. 97/2010 has been filed as a represented appeal by Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate.

(3.) Assailing the judgment of the learned trial Judge, Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted to this Court that in this case, the appellant has wrongly been convicted by the trial Judge. The circumstantial evidence which has been relied upon by the learned trial Judge in convicting the appellant is not of such a clinching nature so as to leading to the irrefutable conclusion of guilt against the appellant. He has further submitted that the rent note (Ex. P.Q.1) dated 10-12-2009 relied upon by the prosecution was, as a matter of fact, concocted one and that the accused had been made to sign the same while in custody. It has further been submitted that the evidence of identification as alleged by the prosecution was flimsy and there was no evidence to conclude that the appellant was the person responsible for the death of Hem Lata. It has further been argued that the cause of death of Hem Lata, as per the doctor's evidence, was judicial and as such the charge under Sec. 302, Penal Code could not be sustained against the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that it has not been proved that the dead body was of Hem Lata.