RAMJI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT. Kesanti was axed to death in the morning of July 18, 2000 while she was residing with her husband (appellant ). Learned Additional Sessions Judge Gangapur City tried the appellant and convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, with default stipulation.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on July 18, 2000 at 11. 30 AM informant Darbab Singh (PW. 1) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) at the Police Station Gangapur City to the effect that on the said day around 7 Am one Lakhan Singh came to inform his wife (who was Sarpanch at the relevant time) that Ramji Lal (appellant) has killed his wife Kesanti. Since Sarpanch was not present in the house. Darab Singh and Lakhan Singh rushed to the house of Ramji Lal where they found Kesanti lying dead having injuries on the neck whereas Ramji Lal was filed down by him family members. On that report a case under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Gangapur City. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 10 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. The defence of appellant was that he was not at home at the time of incident and he did not commit the murder of his wife, he was falsely implicated in the case. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) IT appears from the record that the appellant had suspicion about the character of Kesanti. Ramkesh (PW. 2) in his cross examination stated that there was rumour in the village about the bad character of Kesanti. Even Bhajan (PW. 3), the father of appellant, in his cross examination admitted that the character of Kesanti was not good. Although these witnesses did not support the entire prosecution story and they were declared hostile, their testimony provides clue as to what could have been the motive of the appellant. From the evidence of Ramkesh and Bhajan it is established that Kesanti was a woman of easy virtues and this possibility cannot be ruled out that the appellant wanted to get rid of Kesanti because of her bad character. DEMISE OF KESANTI WAS A CUSTODIAL DEATH: