BHALA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kekri (Ajmer) dated 12.9.2001 convicting the appellant Bhala Ram for offence under Sections 302,376 and 379 IPC, and imposing sentence to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under Section 302 IPC, 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence under Section 376 IPC, and one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 379 IPC.

(2.) According to the First Information Report lodged at Police Station, Bhinai (Ajmer), by Suresh Chand Sharma s/o Radha Kishan, on 2.9.1998 that his Bhabhi Smt.Pushpa Devi wife of Om Prakash went to the agriculture field to cut the grass and bring it home, but she did not return home by evening and at about 8.00 p.m. in the night, complainant Suresh Chand alongwith Ramesh and some other persons went on their agriculture field where maize was grown. They found the dead body of Smt.Pushpa and around her neck, they found a round of her own saree, and it appears that somebody after committing rape with her, has murdered her. On the said First Information Report, the police undertook the investigation and framed charges under Sections 302, 376, 447 and 379 Indian Penal Code against the appellant Bhala Ram. During the course of investigation, as many as 27 prosecution witnesses were examined, and 26 prosecution documents were exhibited before the trial court as against five defence witnesses produced on defence side. According to the post-mortem report Ex.P16 dated 3.9.1998, in the opinion of the doctors, the cause of death of deceased Pushpa occurred on account of respiratory failure due to asphyxia caused by strangulation. The injuries found on the body parts are described under the said post-mortem report, which are as under:

(3.) Injury report relating to appellant Bhala Ram is Ex.P24. The prosecution has sought to establish his case mostly on the basis of circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness available in the present case.