KALU RAM & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar dated 8.9.1998 convicting the appellants Kalu Ram and Amar Singh for the offence under section 302 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code respectively. Both of them have been sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Appellant Kalu Ram has further been convicted for the offence under section 452 and 326 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment & to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each count. For the same offences, appellant Amar Singh has been convicted with the aid of Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced similarly.

(2.) The factual scenario as emerged during the trial is that on 21.6.1997 at about 7.30 AM, a telephonic information from unknown person was received at Police Station, Nohar to the effect that in village Bhadra, murder of Zindu Ram has been committed.

(3.) Assailing the conviction, it is vehemently argued by Mr. H. S.S. Kharlia learned counsel for the appellants that it was a blind murder and since none of the alleged eye witnesses had actually seen the occurrence, they had roped-in appellants on mere suspicion. Learned counsel has severely criticized the conduct of both P.W. 1 Sahab Ram and P.W. 2 Chiriya being contrary to the ordinary human conduct. It is submitted that the incident is alleged to have taken place at about 9-9.30 PM and the dead body of Zindu Ram remained lying unattended for the whole night. Such a conduct was not expected from the wife and son of the deceased. It is suggested that the murder might have taken place somewhere else and both the alleged eye witnesses were not even aware till morning as to the manner of the incident and the names of the actual assailants. Learned counsel has pointed out serious infirmities in the investigation inasmuch as the pellets and wads were not collected from the place of incident. Learned counsel has also raised contention with respect to exact timing of the incident on the basis of the statement of P.W. 5 Dr. J. P. Swamy. On post mortem, he found the semi digested food in the stomach of the deceased. It is also submitted that no explanation has been given for delay in filing the F.I.R. It is also submitted that as far as appellant Amar Singh is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that he shared the common intention in the murder of Zindu Ram with co-accused Kalu Ram.