LEKHA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the accused Lekha Ram against a judgment dated 18.3.2000 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer whereby the appellant has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 has been awarded. Rigorous Imprisonment for three months has been ordered in lieu of fine.

(2.) On 11.8.1998 at 7. 00 A. M., PW/6 Bhanwara Ram S/o Kherajram Meghwal, resident of Village Bayatu reached the Police Station, Bayatu and lodged a written FIR Ex. P/10 before the SHO. According to the FIR, the accused Lekhram was the brother of PW/6 Bhanwara Ram. At about 4. 00 A. M. on that day Bhanwara Ram heard the cries of children emanating from the 'Dhani' of the accused. Bhanwara Ram rushed to the house of the accused and found that the wife of the accused was lying dead. Further it was stated that the accused had murdered his wife Smt. Nainu by inflicting injury to her head by a 'hammer'. On further enquiry by the SHO the lodger of the FIR PW/6 Bhanwara Ram disclosed that when he reached the house of the appellant, the appellant was found standing with a 'hammer' in his hand and the daughter of the appellant PW/2 Sunita @ Suki disclosed to Bhanwara Ram that it was the appellant Leklia Ram, who had murdered Smt. Nainu by inflicting the injuries from the 'hammer'. The motive forthe crime according to Bhanwara Ram was that the appellant suspected that the deceased was having some extra-marital affair. A case under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and after investigation, the appellant was put to trial for the said offence. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charge. Seventeen witnesses were examined by the prosecution. None was examined in defence and in his statement recorded under Sec. 313 Code Criminal Procedure the accused denied that he was present in village Bayatu at the relevant time. According to him, he was in village Sewau at the relevant time from where he was picked up by the police. The learned trial court then heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 18.3.2000 as stated supra.

(3.) We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the record of the trial Court. We find that the conclusions drawn by the learned trial court against the appellant are unsustainable and the appeal deserves to be allowed.