RAJU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJU, the appellant herein was put to trial before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer, in Sessions Case No. 76/2001. The learned trial Judge vide his judgment dated 26. 3. 2003, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 28. 6. 2000, a written report was lodged at Police Station, Civil Lines, Ajmer, by the complainant Shri Nand Lal, s/o Lal Chand (elder brother) stating therein that on 28. 6. 2000 in the morning he was sleeping out side his house situated at Ghunghra Ghati, Ajmer. He got up on hearing the voice of his son Raju who was uttering that he had killed Latesh, the handicapped sister of Nandlal. He saw that the clothes of his son were stained with blood and he was coming out of the room of Banshi Lal. Nandlal then went to the room of Bansi Lal and on peeping inside the door, he saw blood inside the room. THEn he asked Raju to sit there and in the meanwhile his brother Brij Lal also came to the place and Raju also uttered the words that he had killed Latesh before him. On going inside the room, both of them found that their sister Latesh, who was disabled and could not walk, was already dead and she had injuries on her head and mouth. On the aforesaid report, a case under Section 302 IPC was registered at the Police Station and investigation was handed over to the Sub-Inspector Surendra Singh, by the S. H. O. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. THE accused Raju was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and after the trial, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) IN assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant urged following points:- (i) The only eye witness Neha (PW. 7) is a child, aged seven and half years, whose testimony is unsafe to base conviction; (ii) The written information from Nandlal (PW. 6) was procured by Police at 6. 30 p. m. On the day of occurrence while the alleged incident took place at 6. 30 a. m. in the morning and the investigation had already commenced at 6. 30 a. m. ; (iii) The corroborative evidence including that of the witnesses who immediately reached at the place of occurrence is not sufficient to link the appellant with the crime; and (iv) the motive of the crime is missing and in the facts and circumstances of the case benefit of doubt should go to the appellant;