SIKANDAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SIKANDAR , aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.7.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Beawar, has approached this court. By the said judgment, the learned Judge had convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and by an order of even date had sentenced him to life imprisonment, had imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/ - and directed to further undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 24.6.2008 Sikandar submitted a written report (Exhibit -P.17) which when translated into English, reads as under: -

(3.) ON the basis of this report, a Mrig report bearing No.29/08 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and was handed over for investigation to Dashrath Singh (P.W.13). During the initial investigation, Dashrath Singh (P.W.13) had gotten an inquest report made, post -mortem done and returned the dead body to Allanoor (P.W.1), the elder brother -in -law of the deceased. After completing the investigation, Dashrath Singh (P.W.13) found that an offence under Section 306 IPC was committed and handed over the investigation to another police officer, Dashrath Singh Gaur (P.W.17), S.I., Police Station Beawar Sadar. Subsequently, the case was handed over to Sajjan Singh. Subsequently, on 28.6.2008, a formal FIR (Ex.P.19), namely FIR No.293/08 was chalked out for offence under Section 306 IPC. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the present appellant, who also happened to be the complainant in this case. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge -sheet for offence under Section 302 IPC before the concerned court. By order dated 1.12.2008 the charges were framed under Section 302 IPC and in the alternative, under Section 306 IPC. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined twenty witnesses, and submitted twenty -two documents. Although the defence did not examine any witness, it did submit eight documents. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this court.