JETHA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 23, 1990 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur 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 and a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Appellant Jetha Ram was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, for committing the murder of his father Isha Ram in the night intervening between 20/21st November, 1989 at his house situated in village Khimasriyia (district Jodhpur). The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the F.I.R., was that Chandna Ram (PW 1), in the intervening night of 20/21st November, 1989, at 9.00/10.00 p.m., when he was in his Dhani and tying (Sic)(tieing) the she-goats in the cote (Bara), he heard the cries from the Dhani of Isha Ram. He, along with Ghewar Ram, went to the Dhani of Isha Ram and saw Smt. Kasumbi W/o Isha Ram, her son and daughter Nojki in the house. On enquiry being made they informed that some evil-spirits were possessed and the condition of Isha Ram was not prefect and, therefore, they were crying. They, thereafter, attended Isha Ram and found him dead. Thereafter, Ghewar Ram was sent to call Dewa Ram and Deepa Ram. In the morning they saw the signs of injuries on the temple region of Isha Ram. Certain other villagers of the community, also, came there and all were of the opinion that Isha Ram did not die of natural death. There was a dispute between Isha Ram and his family members including his son accused Jetha Ram regarding the engagement of Nojki - the sister of the accused. On enquiry, Jetha Ram informed that the boy with whom Nojki was engaged earlier, died and his father wanted to get her engagement done at some other place, which was not acceptable to him and some altercations took place and he, in the anger, inflicted injuries to his father by a Lathi. The accused also, informed them that he, also, strangulated his father.

(3.) The prosecution, in support of its case, examined twelve witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence.