KANHI RAM Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1. Baran dated 26.11.1981, whereby he convicted accused appellant Kanhi Ram for offence under Sec. 302 Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, and a fine of Rs. 1000.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution case started with the F.I.R. (Ex.P.16) lodged by Madan Lal father of the deceased Majboot Singh. It was mentioned in the report that the complainant is resident of Faizpura and his younger brother Kanhi Ram wants to forcibly occupy his house. He also intends to swallow the agricultural land. The complainant has stated that he has only one son and two daughters. A couple of days before lodging the report i. e. on 14.4.1985, it was alleged that Kanhi Ram took his son to his house and they started playing cards, which he saw when he had gone to the river for washing twine (Sutali). He had seen the shoes of his son lying outside the house of the latter. When he came back from the river side, the house was bolted. Since there was a condolence congregation in village Hanyahedi, he left for that village at 2.00 in the noon in the company of Kalyan Singh Raghunath, Radhey Shyam and Baijnath. They saw accused Kanhi Ram coming from the side of Bedhare (rivulet) and he was perspiring and also giving nervous look. He however, avoided it and did not talk to him. On his return from Hanyahedi in the night at about 8.0, his wife asked about his son, on which he replied that he had not accompanied him. The search was made at various places, but he was not traceable. His daughter Ramkali however informed him that she has seen her brother with Kanhi Ram at about 12.30 or 1.00 in the noon. It is further mentioned that search was made in various villages on the next day, but he was not traced out. Thereafter, Kanhi Ram on seeing him and his wife searching, told them that they should go towards Badhare side and he further told that some one might have murdered him and they can get the dead body there. On hearing this, he along with his brother Jagroop went to Badhare and found the dead body of his son near the field of Kishna. He also found his shoes lying near him and also a ring, which he had. It was further mentioned that they have also seen the foot marks of two persons near the place of occurrence; one of which was small and another was large in size. He mentioned in the report that his son has been killed by Kanhi Ram. On receipt of this report, S.H.O. Police Station Bapkya registered a case under Sec. 302 Penal Code and started investigation. The doctor was called at the place where the dead body was found. Dr. Vinod Mehta (PW12) conducted the post mortem examination. He found that the body was decomposed, but had bruises around the neck and the cause of death was shown to be strangulation (throttling). The accused who had participated in searching out the boy, in the company of the father and another brother, was arrested on 17.4.1981. The Police during investigation on 17.4.1981 went to the place of occurrence and prepared the site-plan (Ex.P.4) and site inspection memo (Ex.P.5). At point D in the site plan, they marked foot prints and information thereafter, was sent to the Modus-operandi-bureau of the crime branch wherefrom Nand Kishore, Sub-Inspector of the S. P. Office went on the spot and took the mould of the left leg foot prints. This mould was sealed are sent to the S.P. Office for onwards transmission to the Finger Prints Bureau Rajasthan. Jaipur along with the pair of shoes recovered from accused Kanhi Ram The Superintendent of Police, Kota vide his letter No. KTH/MOB/8718 dated 12.5.1981 sent a pair of shoes along with the mould to the Director Finger Prints Bureau. Rajasthan, Jaipur for comparison as well as the final opinion. An specific question was posed in the letter addressed by the Investigating Officer to the Director. Finger Prints Bureau as to whether the mark A, which was mould print is identical to the shoes of the left foot and if so, the result may be sent. Report (Ex.P 20) was sent by the Director, Finger Prints Bureau on 2.6.1981. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused appellant in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Baran who, committed the accused to Sessions for trial.

(3.) At the trial, prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of its case. The accused when examined under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C. submitted that he has been falesely implicated in the case. He however, did not lead any evidence in defence. Learned Sessions Judge after discussing the law about the circumstantial evidence, found the following four circumstances against the accused: