RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS DB Cr. Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C., has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.3.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No.1, Kota in Sessions Case No. 141/2003 whereby the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: - Appellant Ram Kumar : Under Section 302: to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/ - in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to this appeal are that a written report (Ex.P/28) was lodged by PW/21 Ranveer Singh at police Station Udyog Nagar, Kota on 5.7.2003 with the averment that on 4.7.2003 at about 6.30 p.m., he was working at Sriram Raiyans Factory at that time, his son Sheru and accused appellant Ramkumar came there to deliver him food and thereafter they went away stating that they are going to home. After completion of his duty, he came to his house in the night, Sheru his son was not there and his wife has told him that Ramkumar has come along with the motor cycle and it has been stated by the Ramkumar that Sheru dropped himself at DCM Circle and he came there to drop the motor cycle. Next day on 5.7.2003 at 7.00 in the morning, Ramkumar and his wife came there and Ramkumar told him that on the road of DCM Bridge to Ummedganj, Sheru is lying dead. The information also went there and saw that dead body of Sheru lying there and the suspicion has been caste by the information that Ramkumar has murdered his son. On this FIR No.236/2003 has been lodged under Section 302 IPC and after investigation charge -sheet has been filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The case was committed to Sessions Judge and it was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.l, Kota. The charges have been framed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC which was denied by the accused and h claimed to be tried. To prove the case against the present appellant, prosecution has examined PW/1 Mohan Singh S/o Bhim Singh, PW/2 Sukhbeer Singh, PW/3 Man Singh, PW/4 Rupendra Singh, PW/5 Mohan Singh S/o Chhote Singh, PW/6 Gopal Singh, PW/7 Ramvilas, PW/8 Babulal Meena, PW/9 Rajendra Singh, PW/10 Murlidhar, PW/11 Narpat Singh, PW/12 Nand Singh, PW/13 Dr. G.S. Bishnar, PW/14 Dinesh, PW/15 Nissar Khan, PW/16 Prahlad, PW/17 Ramkishan, PW/18 Abhimanu, PW/19 Pushpendra Singh, PW/20 Chandra Devi, PW/21 Ranveer Singh, PW/22 Mukut Bihari, PW/23 Shailendra, PW/24 Abhay Singh, PW/25 Vikky PW/26 Shiv Singh and PW/27 Ghasilal and exhibited documents Ex.P/1 to P/37. The accused -appellant has been examined under Section 313 and in defence DW/1 Smt. Urmila has been produced and to support his case, the defence has relied on Ex.D/1 to D/4. After conclusion of trial, the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Hence, this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) THE contention of the present appellant is that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence but prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances. FIR is ante time. The investigation has started prior to it hence could not be relied upon. No motive has been assigned to the present appellant to commit this heinous crime. Witnesses of last -seen PW/12 Nand Singh and PW/23 Shailendra Singh are not worth reliance. Recoveries have been made in presence of only interested witnesses. The post -mortem report reveals complete absence of any Alcohol in he body of the deceased contrary to the version of last seen witnesses PW/12 Nand Singh and PW/23 Shailendra Singh. There is no evidence that the present appellant has administered any poisonous substance forcibly to the deceased and the present appellant be acquitted. Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor is that deceased was last seen with the appellant and witnesses PW/12 Nand Singh and PW/23 Shailedra Singh has categorically proved this fact and there is no reason to disbelieve these witnesses. FIR has been lodged immediately, hence no concoction can be attributed to it. It is true that clear -cut motive has not been set up in FIR but in court - statement father has stated that appellant was having intimate relations with the wife of deceased. Recovery of poisonous substance has been made at the information and instance of the present appellant which matches with the visceras of the deceased which also corroborates the ocular evidence presented by the prosecution and there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment, no interference is needed.