SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE abduction and murder of Rajesh Kumar forms the background of these two appeals. THE appellants have challenged the judgment dated 27. 04. 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur whereby both have been convicted for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and have been sentenced to life imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/- and to undergo a further sentence of 6 months of simple imprisonment in default thereof. THEy have also been convicted for offence under Section 364 IPC and have been sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/- and to further undergo 6 months of simple imprisonment in default thereof. Since both these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment, they are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution story starts in Bharatpur where one Mahendra Singh (PW-1) owned a jeep, bearing Registration No. UMW-7711, which he used to run as a tax. THE driver of the said jeep was Rajesh Kumar, the deceased in this case. Allegedly on 16. 9. 1999 one Rajjo (PW-4) came to Mahendra Singh and told him that his tenant Rajesh, the appellant No. 2 before us, wants to hire his jeep for the purpose of bringing his wife and children as his wife has been transferred from Ajmer. Since he did not know the person who wanted to hire the said jeep, he asked his friend Rajesh (PW-2) to go and find out who wanted to hire the jeep. On the assurance of Rajjo, Mahendra Singh allowed his driver Rajesh Kumar to take both Rajesh and another person. THE jeep left on 16. 9. 1999 and was scheduled to come back from Ajmer on the next day. Since the jeep did not come back, Mahendra Singh inquired from Rajjo who assured him that the jeep would return and the delay may have been caused because of some urgent work. Since, the jeep did not return till 21. 9. 1999, Mahendra Singh lodged a report (Ex. P. 1) with Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur for a possible abduction of his driver Rajesh Kumar. On the basis of the said report, the police chalked out a former FIR (FIR No. 302/1999) for offences under Sections 364 & 120-B IPC.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses and submitted 44 documents. On the other hand, the defence neither examined any witness nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 27. 4. 2002 the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned.