MOHAN SINGH @MUNNA @MAANBAHADUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated 10/02/2004 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track. No.2, Sikar in Sessions Case No.18/2003 by which, accused appellant Mohan Singh @Munna @Maanbahadur:

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that one Omprakash, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gokulpura telephonically gave information to S.H.O. Police Station Kotwali at 8.30 a.m. on 27/12/2002 that they should immediately reach Hotel Friends as something wrong has been happened to Bareth ji. Mehfuj Ali, SHO Police Station Kotwali made the entry to this effect in the Rojnamcha and reached the place of incident. Shrawan Kumar gave a written report to him there vide Exh.P.11 that he was working as Manager of the hotel for last six seven years. Baldev Singh, retired Thanedar was caretaker of the hotel for last three four years. Baldev Singh took his dinner and went to his room around 12 in the midnight to sleep. The informant also went to his room. Mahesh, an employee of the hotel, awakened him (informant. at 7.30 a.m. asking why Thanedar ji (Baldev Singh. did not wake up him on that day early morning as he used always do. They went to the room of Baldev Singh. It was locked from outside. When they peeped through window, they saw Baldev Singh lying dead on the bed. He had received a head injury. There were blood stains on the walls and a hammer was also lying by his side. Some unknown person had murdered Baldev Singh while he asleep. Scooter belonging to Baldev Singh with Registration No.RJV.7053, which used to remain parked in the verandah of the hotel, has also been stolen.

(3.) THE police after investigation, filed challan against the accused appellant. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On committal of the case, the learned court below framed the charges against the accused appellant for offence u/Ss.449, 302, 457, 380 and 279 IPC but appellant denied to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced as many as 33 witnesses and exhibited 95 documents and produced 23 keys as articles and 14 other articles. The defence did not produce any witness but exhibited 11 documents. The trial court after conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant in the manner indicated above.