KALU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated Sept. ,6 1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 79/92 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_27_LAWS(RAJ)12_19951.html</FRM> All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The incident is said to have taken place on 24.12.90 and it is alleged that Smt. Kani wife of Ram Kishan (now deceased) had gone to her field for bringing fodder for the cattle in the morning after 8.00 a.m. and when she did not return her mother-in-law Smt. Birdhi started her search. Her dead-body was recovered from her field and it was found that her legs and hands were cut-down and she was also having injuries with pellets on her abdomen. According to prosecution, some one had committed murder of Smt. Kani for her ornaments she was wearing before her death. The report of incident was made at 6.30 p.m. on the same day and Crime N. 184/90 was registered under Sections 302 and 379, Penal Code at Police Station Jamua-Ramgarh. It appears that investigation changed hands from one Investigating Officer to another and ultimately the appellant was arrested on 3.9.92. The prosecution case further is that on the information of the appellant silver 'Kadas' were recovered vide recovery memo (Ex.P. 5) on 7.9.92. A gun and a 'Chhuri' is also stated to have been recovered at the instance of the appellant. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court of concerned Magistrate and ultimately he was put on trial in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur for offences punishable under Sec. 302, 379 and 414 Penal Code and Sec. 27 of the Arms Act. During trial 27 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused denied his involvement in the crime and the prosecution evidence in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.PC and examined 4 witnesses in defence.

(3.) At the outset it may be stated that there was no direct evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. The learned Trial Judge has recorded conviction of the appellant relying on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the following circumstances to seek conviction of the appellant