KAJOD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Kajod was convicted of the offences under Sec. 302,201 and 404, I. P. C, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tonk, by his judgment dated 15. 4. 1974. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on the count (under Sec. 302, I. P. C.) and under Sec. 201, I. P. C. , he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month and for the offence under Sec. 404, I. P. C, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a line of Rs. 500/, and in default to undergo further rigorous imprissoonment for four months. THE substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that accused Kajod was a resident of village Nivai. THE father of the accused Chanda (P. W. 4) had a sister Smt. Kesar (P. W. 24 ). Kesar used to live at village Jhilai, which is at a distance of about six miles from Nivai. She was married to Ghasi (P. W. 27 ). Ghasi had two sons, Ganesh (P. W. 1) & Ram Narayan Ram Narain died some ten years' back leaving behind his son Ramphool, deceased, aged about 14 years. He was living with his grand parents at Jhilai. On the evening of 18-6-1978 the accused Kajod visited the house of his father's sister at Jhilai and stayed there that night. THE accused and the deceased Ramphool slept on that night on the same cot. In the morning Ramphool left the house and proceeded to graze his goats and sheep in the jungle. THE accused Kajod after taking his breakfast also accompanied him. At the time of departure, the deceased Ramphool was wearing Angarkhi, Dhoti and shoes and he also carried a 'dolchi,. THE accused left the house wearing Bakhtari, Dhoti and turban and was having a bag.

(3.) THE crucial question in the present case is as to whether the evidence on record is sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the offence of murder ? In order to connect the accused with the commission of the offence of murder of Ramphool, the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence only. THEre is no direct evidence on record. It is to be seen, what circumstances are proved against the accused and whether those circumstances lead to only one and one conclusion that it was the accused, who committed the murder of Ramphool. It is also to be seen that the death of Ramphool was homicidal in nature or it was accidental. THE prosecution in this connection has placed reliance on the following circumstances: - (1) that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused in the morning of 19. 6. 1963; (2) that the accused was found in possession of the flock of sheep and goats, which he carried from Nivai to Jaipur. He was found at Jaipur and was brought to Nivai. Out of the flock he had disposed of one she goat and one sheep and lamb; (3) that the nails and the Dhoti and Bakhtari of the accused were found stained with human blood; and (4) the accused gave no information in respect of the death of Ram-phool to his relations instead of giving information he went away to Jaipur.