SATYA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa in Sessions Case No. 182/94 for having committed murder of his brother Ramesh Chand. Vide judgment dated July 10, 1996, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced him under Sec. 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer one month imprisonment. In the instant appeal the appellant has called in question the said judgment of the learned trial judge.

(2.) THE incident as per written report Ex. P. 1 occurred on May 20, 1994 when Sunita (PW. 1) the wife of deceased Ramesh Chand was away from her in laws house and had gone to her parental house. She received the information of death of her husband Ramesh Chand after two days of the occurrence. Where upon she and her parents rushed to her in laws house and came to know that Satya Prakash (appellant), the real elder brother of Ramesh Chand, poured kerosine on Ramesh Chand while he was sleeping in the night of May 20, 1994 and ignited fire as a result of which Ramesh Chand died and without intimating her the dead body of Ramesh Chand was creamated in the night itself. On the basis of report, that was submitted on May 24, 1994 Police Station Mahuwa registered a case against the appellant under Secs. 302/201 and 342 IPC bearing FIR No. 141/94 and investigation commenced. Site plan was drawn. Statements of witnesses under Sec. 161 were recorded. Injuries sustained by Ram Swaroop (PW. 3) were got medically examined. Cot and burned clothes of deceased were seized and on completion of the investigation charge sheet was laid. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Dausa. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant who denied the charge and claimed trial. As many as eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the appellant pleaded innocence and stated that he was not present in the house at the time of incident and was implicated in a false case. No witness in defence was however examined. THE learned trial judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove.

(3.) LEARNED trial court draw the guilt of the appellant on the basis of following incriminating circumstances- (i) Appellant had suspicion that his wife had illicit relationship with the deceased and they had a quarrel before the incident. (ii) Just after the incident the appellant was seen running from the spot. (iii) The deceased orally stated after the incident that he was burnt by the appellant.