MAHIPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was indicated before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu for having committed murder of Rang Lal in Sessions Case No. 49/1999 (old 13/1997 ). THE learned judge vide judgment dated August 29, 1999 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. In default, to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution story is woven like this: on December 17, 1996 around 4:25 P. M. informant Surendra Kumar P. W. submitted a written report Ex. P. 3 with the police station Singhana stating therein that around 4:00 P. M. when he was on the verge of closing the shop he saw a boy going towards the market. When the boy reached a little ahead of the shop, reached near him and inflicted knife blow. THE injured boy raised cry and fell down. THE boy who inflicted the blow ran away towards the Higher Secondary School. Although the informant did not know thee name of the assailant but could identify him. THE name of the boy lying dead was disclosed by a school boy as Rang Lal. On the basis of the said report, a case under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant who denied the charge and claimed trial. THE prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 16 witnesses and got exhibited 13 documents. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the appellant claimed innocence. THE appellant examined one witness in defence. On hearing final submissions, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of learned trial judge and urged that testimony of Ram Kumar was rightly relied upon. Statement of Ram Kumar gets support from the evidence of Ajeet Kumar (PW. 5) who stated that after committing crime the appellant came to him and demanded money so as to get bandage over his would sustained by him in the course of incident.