RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28-2-1990 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life but did not impose the sentence of fine in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) Appellant Ram Singh was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar for committing the murder of Mohan Singh (aged about 6 to 7 years) s/o Smt. Sushila Devi. The prosecution case, which led to the trial and conviction of the appellant is that Smt. Sushila Devi was earlier married to one Man Singh and out of that wed-lock she gave birth to two sons and one daughter. Four-five years before the date of the incident, Smt. Sushila Devi contacted marriage, with accused Ram Singh. Since this marriage deceased Mohan Singh was living with his mother and accused Ram Singh. Accused-appellant Ram Singh was working in the Rubber Reclaiming Factory of one Om Prakash Soni situated in Udyog Vihar, Sri Ganganagar. The appellant, along with his family members consisting of Smt. Sushila and her children, was living in the quarter situated in the premises of the factory. On the day of the incident, i.e., the night intervening 6/7th August, 1989, at about 12.00/12.30 a.m., appellant Ram Singh came to his house and asked Smt. Sushila Devi to place the cot out-side the house. Deceased Mohan Singh said that he would like to sleep out-side the house, which enraged the appellant and he knocked Mohan Singh against the wall. This act of knocking was repeated by the appellant several times. Smt. Sushila tried to rescue her son Mohan Singh but she could not succeed. Thereafter, after scaling over the wall, she went in the Ice Factory situated nearby and sought the help of PW 6 Som Dutt, who is the brother of the owner of the ice factory and requested him to save the life of her son. Som Dutt sent Lalit Singh with her. Lalit Singh came with Smt. Sushila but as the door of the factory was locked, he refused to scale over the wall and returned back. Smt. Sushila, after scaling over the wall, went to her house and on enquiry, the accused-appellant informed her that the body (deceased Mohan Singh) was inside the room. She thereafter slept on the roof of the house. In the morning she saw that Mohan Singh was lying dead. She thereafter went to the house of Om Prakash Soni (the owner of the factory) and informed him regarding the incident. They were thinking to go to the Police Station to lodged the report but in the meanwhile the appellant came there and confessed his guilt before Om Prakash Soni. All the three then went to the Police Station and lodged the First Information Report. After registering the case, the appellant was arrested by the Station House Officer and he thereafter gave the information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the place where the dead body of Mohan Singh was lying and in pursuance to this information, the dead body of Mohan Singh was recovered. After completing the investigation, PW 5 Prem Narain Bishnoi, S.H.O., presented the challan.

(3.) The prosecution, in support of its case examined six witnesses. The accused-appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above. It is against this judgment dated 20-2-1990 that the appellant has preferred this appeal.