KANNA SINGH @ KARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment dated 13.1.2006, the appellant, Kanaa Singh @ Karan Singh, a convicted prisoner, has sent a Jail appeal to this court, namely D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No.882/2006. He has also filed a regular appeal, namely, D.B. Criminal Appeal 182/2006. The regular appeal shall be disposed off in light of the decision of the Jail appeal. The impugned judgment was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC. By an order of even date, for offence under Section 302 IPC, the learned Judge sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, imposed a fine of Rs.2000/ -, and directed the appellant to further undergo one year of simple imprisonment in default thereof. For offence under Section 201 IPC, the learned Judge sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment, imposed him with a fine of Rs.1000/ - and directed him to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment in default thereof. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that on 3.4.2004, Smt. Nozi Devi submitted a written report (Ex.P.11) before the SHO, Police Station Jawaja, District Ajmer. The said report when translated into English, reads as under: -

(3.) ON the basis of the said report (Ex.P.11), the police chalked out a formal FIR, namely FIR No.47/04, for offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC. On 4.4.2004, the appellant was arrested from the village itself. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge -sheet against him for the said offences before the Judicial Magistrate, Beawar. On 21.7.2004, the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Beawar. By order dated 21.9.2004, the appellant was charged for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. He denied the charges and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses, and submitted twenty -seven documents. Although the defense did not examine any witness, but it did submit two documents. After completing the trial, the learned convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforementioned.