RAKESH & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants Rakesh and Rukman Singh have been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the judgment of the learned Special Judge. S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur dated 1.12.2000.

(2.) The factual scenario as emerged from the police investigation is that the deceased Durgesh aged 26 years resident of district Bharatpur was running a Medical Clinic in the rented premises of Om Prakash (P.W.2) at Mandore area in the City of Jodhpur. He was not holding any recognised medical degree for running such Clinic. His dead body was found near Narsing Vihaar, Lal Sagar, Mandore on 23.8.1999. AT some distance near Gokulji Ki Piao and along the road, three two wheelers viz: Motor Cycle No. RNN 8973 and two scooters bearing Nos. RNN 9889 and RL 19-5AM7031 were found lying. The Scooter No. RNN 9889 belonged to Madho Singh (P.W.15), whereas another vehicle No. RJ 19-5AM7031 was in the name of accused Bharat Solanki (since acquitted). On enquiry, it revealed from Madho Singh (PW. 15) that the said scooter was taken by his nephew appellant Rakesh at 6 P.M. who was accompanied by appellant Rukman Singh. Appellants Rakesh and Rukman were found absconding. According to Omprakash (P.W.2), the accused persons were seen moving around the Dispensary of deceased Durgesh for last 3-4 days. P.W.8 Jagdish telephoned at the Police Station. Mandore about the incident of murder. P. W. 18 Naga Ram, Incharge of the Police Station immediately reached on the spot. On his information, a case for the offence under section 302, 120-B Penal Code read with Sec. 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered. The police inspected the site and prepared the inspection memo and the inquest report. ON spot, a briefcase was also found belonging to the accused, which contained number of articles including bunch of photographs of number of ladies and girls which included photographs in which deceased was seen posed with certain girls. The police sent the dead body for autopsy. The appellants were arrested on 27.8.1999. The pant and shirt of the appellant Rukman from his person wearing were seized on 29th Aug. 1999. In pursuance of the information given by the appellant Rukman, a knife was recovered. Similarly in pursuance of the information given by accused Rakesh, a "khookhri" and pant and shirt were recovered. After usual investigation, the police laid chargesheet against three accused persons i.e. the appellants Rakesh, Rukman and Bharat Solanki for the offence under section 02, 302 read with 120-B Penal Code and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the S.C/S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(3.) The appellants denied the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution support of the case, adduced oral and documentary evidence. P.W.2 Omprakash while admitted that the deceased was his tenant running a Clinic but denied to have given the statement to the effect that the appellants were seen moving around the Clinic for last 3-4 days, as such, he was declared hostile having not supported the prosecution case. P. W. 1 Gajendra Singh also did not support the prosecution case, and, as such, he was declared hostile. Another important witness P.W. 15 Madho Singh denied to have given the statement that his scooter was taken by the appellant Rakesh. He was also declared hostile. P.W.3 Sawal Singh, PW.12 Mangilal and P.W.13 Hukam Singh, who are motbirs of the recovery of incriminating articles, also did not support the prosecution case and, as such, they were also declared hostile. P.W.8 Jagdish Panwar denied to have given any information to the police, as such, he was also declared hostile. Thus, almost all material witnesses having not supported the prosecution case, were declared hostile. Nothing has been elicited in cross examination to support the prosecution case.