RAM LAL AND ANR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by accused-appellants (1) Ram Lal s/o Harji Ram Meghwal and (2) Poonam Chand @ Munni Ram s/o Megha Ram against the judgment dated 28.10.2005 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No.2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 30.2004( relating to FIR No. 11/2004 of Police Station, Deshnok, District Bikaner, whereby each of the accusedappellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code by life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month's simple imprisonment was also ordered against them. The trial court has convicted both the accused-persons mainly on the basis of 'last seen evidence' and recovery of blood stained clothes of accused-persons as well as of deceased Ram Lal s/o Chetan Ram Jat from the possession of the accusedpersons and on the basis of the recovery of weapon of offence (knife) and other articles of deceased from the possession of the accused-persons.

(2.) In the appeal, it has been argued that the judgment of the trial court is against the facts as well as against the law, the trial court has ignored the material contradictions and improvements in the statements of the witnesses, the trial court has convicted the accused-persons, though there was no direct evidence of the offence of murder against them, the 'last seen evidence' of Badaruddin(PW-19), Kalu Ram (PW-2) and Moola Ram (PW-8) was not reliable, footprints evidence was also not trust-worthy, Dr. Vijay Soni (PW-12) does not say anything that which of the injuries was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of Ram Lal Jat, there was no enmity or motive to commit murder on the part of the accused-persons, recovery memo of knife(Ex.P.12) does not carry a date and seized articles while being sent to FSL were not kept 'seal intact' and so it is a case of false implication in which both the accused-persons have claimed acquittal.

(3.) As against these arguments of the accused-appellants, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that 'last seen evidence' in this case is perfectly reliable. It has also been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the evidence of footprints may not have been proved to be foolproof but other evidence of recovery of blood stained clothes and knife used in the offence along with other articles of deceased from the possession of accused-appellants proved the case beyond doubt and so it has been requested on behalf of the prosecution that the appeal of the accused-appellants should be dismissed.