LAWS(RAJ)-2025-9-78

RAMAVTAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On September 01, 2025
RAMAVTAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by Ramavtar S/o Panna @ Kalyan (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') against the judgment dated 06.09.2017 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, in Session Case No.128/2014 convicting the accused-appellant under sections 364, 394 & 302 of IPC. Vide order of even date, the appellant was ordered to undergo sentence as under:-

(2.) The facts as set up by the prosecution are that on 10.05.2014 PW-4 Islam Khan (complainant) filed a complaint at Police Station Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur stating that his father and mother went to the labour chowk in search of work. A person came for hiring the labour, the amount offered was not accepted by father of the complainant but his mother Kamli (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') went along and did not return thereafter. The deceased was wearing silver anklets (hereinafter referred to as 'kadiya') and it was suspected that with a motive to have the kadiya, deceased has been abducted. An FIR No.149/2014 was registered on 10.05.2014 at Police Station Mantown, Sawai Madhopur. On 11.06.2014 an FIR No.669/2014 was also registered at Police Station, Sanganer. On 16.06.2014 the appellant was arrested by the Sanganer police. On 17.06.2014 appellant was taken on police remand to the Mantown Police Station. On the information of appellant, human skeleton was recovered on 17.06.2014. On 18.06.2014 the appellant flee from the custody of the Mantown Police Station and FIR No. 181/2014 was registered on 18.06.2014 at Police Station Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant killed the deceased. The contention is that recovery of the knife was from an open space. The kadiya recovered from the room belonging to the appellant are easily available in the market and were shown to the complainant in the police station. It is further argued that there was a gap of thirty five days between the appellant being seen with the deceased and recovery of the skeleton.