NIRANJAN ALIAS NEERU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal impugns the judgment dated March 8, 2000 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur District Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 4/1999, whereby the appellant (herein after described as `accused') was convicted for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer Imprisonment for six months.

(2.) AS per the prosecution story, on September 19, 1998 the informant Laxman submitted a written report at Police station Bagru with the averments that his sister Kanta was married four years back to the accused who was resident of village Ajayrajpura. Since the accused had illicit relations with some other girl, he had never developed liking for Kanta. This fact was disclosed by Kanta to her mother. On September 19, 1998 at 7. 30 AM after receiving the information about the death of Kanta, the informant rushed to her house where he found Kanta dead. The informant saw the injuries on her neck. On the basis of the written report the Police Station Bagru registered a case under section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. Dead body was subjected to post mortem. The accused was arrested and after usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Jaipur District Jaipur. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 22 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the accused claimed innocence and stated that the deceased was a patient of Epilepsy and she used to fall down of the cot after sustaining attack of Epilepsy. The accused denied to have any illicit relations with any other woman. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated herein above.

(3.) IN the case on hand the circumstances established by the prosecution are not of such nature as to be capable of supporting the exclusive hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime of which he is charged.