RAM NIWAS AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants Ram Niwas and Kishore Singh have preferred two separate appeals challenging the judgment dated 24.11.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Merta convicting them for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing each of them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-in default to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. The appelalnts have also been convicted for the offence under Section 364 IPC and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The facts of the case as disclosed during trial are that, deceased, Chotu Ram use to run a tea stall at bus stand of village Sanju. He abruptly disappeared. A missing report (Exhibit-P/8) of the same was filed by his father PW. 7 Ram Dayal @ Dayal Ram at RS. Degana, District Nagore on 18.1.1988 after about 11/2 years stating inter alia that he visited the tea stall of his son and noticed a sum of 3,500/- with him. At that time, appellants Ram Niwas, Kishore Singh and one Seespal Singh were also sitting there. In the evening, he left the hotel but his son did not return to the house till late night, on which he made search of him but could not trace out. About six months back, he met Seespal Singh. He found a wrist watch belonging to his missing son on his wrist. He was also found wearing silver chain belonging to his son. He enquired from him about his son but he pleaded ignorance. He made a search of his missing son at various places, namely Surat, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad etc. About four days back he came to know that the three miscreants has abducted his son and killed him. On this report police registered a case of offence under Section 364 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. After usual investigation, police laid charge-sheet against the appellants for the offence under Sections 364, 302 and 404 IPC.

(3.) The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty of the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. The prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence to bring home guilt against the appellants. The appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.RC. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against them. The trial Court having found the prosecution case proved, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner indicated above.