RAJU ALIAS BADARI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant (for short "the appellant") assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dtd. 27/1/2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) No.1, Kota (for brevity "the learned trial court") in Sessions Case No.52/2015 whereby, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

(2.) The relevant facts, in nutshell, as revealed are that the complainant-Shakil submitted a written report dtd. 7/6/2015 at about 2:25 PM at MBS Hospital, Kota to the Station House Officer, Police Station Borkhera, District Kota City, stating therein that his younger brother had informed him telephonically that his father-Jamil Khan was stabbed with knife by the appellant which was witnessed by Shri Mohan. It was further alleged that about four-five days ago, the appellant had threatened to beat his father. Based thereupon, an FIR No.253 dtd. 7/6/2015 was registered against the appellant at Police Station Borkhera, District Kota City for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC. After investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted under Sec. 302 IPC whereunder, charges were also framed. After trial, he has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinabove.

(3.) Assailing the judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Court has recorded his conviction based only on surmises and conjectures and there is no legally admissible evidence available on record to connect him with the offence. He contended that although, the learned trial Court has relied upon the testimony of Shri Mohan (PW-2) and Smt. Hasina (PW-3)-the alleged eye witnesses; but, failed to appreciate that their testimony was full of contradictions and improvements on material aspects of the case rendering the same to be totally unreliable. Learned counsel submitted that although, it was prosecution case that the scene of crime was the under construction house of Smt. Hasina but, it was not so corroborated from the site plan (Exhibit P.-6). Learned counsel further contended that recovery of knife/gupti allegedly at his instance was doubtful. Inviting attention of this Court towards the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, learned counsel asserted that although, it has relied upon the forensic science laboratory report to record his conviction but, the same was not exhibited and was not part of the record. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed, the judgment impugned dtd. 27/1/2017 be quashed and set aside and he be acquitted of the charge framed against him.