LALA RAM ALIAS JITENDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SO close was the trap to the nest that Kalu Ram was caught unaware and done to death. Lala Ram @ Jitendra, appellant herein, and his brother Chhote Lal were indicted for committing murder of Lala Ram before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Alwar, who vide judgment dated February 26, 2003 did not find the charge against Chhote Lal established and acquitted him. The appellant was however convicted and sentenced as under:- U/s.302 IPC: To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. U/s.3/25 Arms Act: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE synopsis of the prosecution case can be narrated as follows:- On December 19, 2001 around 2.30 PM while Kalu Ram (deceased) was at his home and his wife Suman was about to serve him lunch, Lala Ram (appellant) came on a motor cycle and persuaded Kalu Ram to immediately accompany him since there was some emergency. Kalu Ram leaving served food on the plate, accompanied Lala Ram. After a short while a boy of Vyas community came running and informed the wife of Kalu Ram that Kalu Ram was lying dead in the `Kothri' (store room) of Lala Ram. Wife of Kalu Ram then rushed to the Kothri and found dead body of Kalu Ram in a pool of blood on the floor whereas Katta (country made pistol) allegedly used in commission of offence, was lying on the cot. Information of the incident was communicated to Mool Chand, brother of the deceased, who was posted as Constable at Police Line Alwar. Mool Chand reached to the Police Station Malakhera (Alwar) and submitted written report (Ex.P-8) to SHO at 5 PM. On that report case under section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body was performed, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Alwar. Charges under sections 302 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 23 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec.313 CrPC, the accused claimed innocence. Two witnesses in support of defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions while acquitting co-accused Chhote Lal convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.

(3.) HAVING regard to the principles enunciated with regard to proof of guilt by circumstantial evidence, we shall now deal with the various circumstances said to be appearing against the appellant and at the same time examine the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant referred to above. EVIDENCE OF LAST SEEN: