TARACHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant Tarachand against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.2) Sikar in Sessions Case No.25/2003 dated 12/2/2004 by which, he was convicted for offence under Sec. 302 Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000.00, in default of payment of which, he was required to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months, he was convicted for offence under Sec. 316 Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of which, he was required to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months, he was convicted for offence under Sec. 404 Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.100.00, in default of payment of which, he was required to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month and he was convicted for offence under Sec. 201 Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of which, he was required to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of two months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Facts of the case are that one Bajranglal submitted a written report to Police Station Kotwali Fatehpur vide Ex.P.1 dated 13/11/2002, wherein it was mentioned that his hotel is situated near "Beed" Fatehpur. Today, he heard from a child that dead body of a woman aged about 25 years was lying in a pit nearby. She was wearing Salwar-Kurta and a Shawl was lying on her body. On this information, police reached the spot and inspected the site. Police on that basis, lodged first information report on 13/11/2002, wherein apart from other details, description of the dead body was mentioned with the height of the deceased to be 5 feet and 9 inches and aged about 25 years. There were no ornaments on the dead body except one metal ring on a finger of the left hand and a cotton band on the right hand. On examination of the place of incident, it was found that foot prints of three persons were available there. Police registered FIR No.28/2002 for offence under Sec. 302 IPC. During investigation, it was discovered to be dead body of Kamla. Police during investigation, arrested accused-appellant Tarachand, who was husband of deceased Kamla and co-accused Sukhdev. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against both of them. While charges were framed against accused-appellant Tarachand for offence under Sections 302 or 302/34, 316 or 316/34, 404 or 404/34 and 201 IPC, charges were framed against co-accused Sukhdev for offence under Sections 302 or 302/34, 316 or 316/34, 404 or 404/34, 376 and 201 IPC. Prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 57 documents in support of its case, whereas defence did not produce any witness though exhibited 5 documents. Accused-appellant in his examination under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C., denied the charges and alleged his false implication but did not take any specific defence and claimed to be tried. Learned trial court after completion of trial, acquitted co-accused Sukhdev from the charge of offence under Sections 302 or 302/34, 316 or 316/34, 404 or 404/34, 201 and 376 Penal Code and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner stated above. Aggrieved thereof, the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) We have heard Shri Rajesh Goswami, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Anoop Dhand, learned counsel for the complainant.