KEDAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by accused-appellant Kedar s/o Chhagan Lal Jat against the judgment dated 8.3.2006 which was passed in Sessions Case No. 66/2005, relating to FIR No. 70/2004 of Police Station, Phuliya Kala) by Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara camp Shahpura District Bhilwara. The accusedappellant was charged for the offence of murder of his eight months' infant son Abhishek by injecting him with poison in his left hip causing his death within eight hours of injection. It has been alleged that the accused-appellant was having relations with another lady Ms. Vimla, who was also living with his first wife Ms. Dharma under the same roof and the accused wanted to get rid of his first wife Ms. Dharma, so he allegedly killed his son born out of wedlock with Ms. Dharma, so that Ms. Dharma could leave the house of the accused-appellant and then he could live happily in exclusive matrimonial life with second wife Ms. Vimla. Accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 Indian Penal Code by the trial court with life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo three months' additional rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) In appeal, it has been argued that the trial court has ignored the law and facts of the case. It has also been argued that there was no direct evidence against the accused-appellant for the murder of his child Abhishek. Most of the prosecution witnesses were hostile but still the trial court has blindly relied upon the statement of the mother of the child. It has further been argued that the post-mortem report mentions the cause of death as asphyxia, while FSL report Ex.P.22 mentions positive tests for the presence of organo-phosphorous insecticide in the viscera of the child. It has been argued that the doctor has not confirmed the cause of death as effect of aforementioned poison and when cause of death is not verified then the benefit of doubt should have been given to the accused-appellant. It has also been argued that syringe, containers of insecticide etc. were allegedly recovered in presence of police officers only and independent motbirs were not named in the Fard Jabti, so recovery is fake and suspicious. It has further been argued that there is no cogent and probable evidence that the seized articles remained 'seal intact' from the place of recovery to the FSL. It has further been argued that PW-1 Ms. Dharma and PW-4 Ms. Sunita were interested and inimical witnesses and only on the basis of those statements, conviction could not have been made in the case. It has further been argued that there are major contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and so the accused-appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of those statements.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in the trial court. A strong motive is there against the accused-appellant. It has also been argued that the accused-appellant has neither any defence nor he has mentioned any defence story in his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. In the circumstances of the case, it has been argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is not even an iota of doubt in the prosecution story and so the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court should be upheld and the appeal of the accused-appellant should be dismissed.