CHANDGI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment dated 10. 7. 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 IPC and has sentenced them to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- and to further undergo a simple imprisonment of 15 days in default thereof. He has also convicted them for offence under Section 452 IPC and has sentenced them to three years R. I. and has imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- each and to further undergo a period of 7 days S. I. in default thereof.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 13. 3. 2000 at 10. 15 a. m. , Smt. Choti (P. W. 1) lodged a written report (Ex. P. 1) at Police Station Bangad wherein she claimed that in the night of the 12th, around 9. 00 p. m. her husband Surendra, her children and she were talking to each-other at their home. Suddenly, Suresh S/o Chandgi Ram, Rajesh Kumar S/o Pitram, Chandgi Ram, Smt. Anchi W/o chandgi Ram, by caste Jat, residents of Lamba Gohada, entered her house and told Surendra that they will not leave him alive. In order to save himself, her husband ran to the back of the house and hid himself in a "khudi" (Chappar ). THEse four persons fulled him out of the "khudi" and dragged him to the house of Rajesh S/o Pitram. While taking him to the house of Rajesh, they kept on assaulting Surendra. At Rajesh's house, they assaulted Surendra with "lathis" (bamboo sticks) and an iron pipe. After killing him, they brought the body back to her house and left it on the cot in the verandah. they have killed her husband because of an old animosity.

(3.) THE first principle of Common Law is that every person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty. Thus, it is for the State - the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt must be established through cogent and convincing evidence and must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Any lacuna, any contradiction, any improbability, or weakness in the case, damages the case of the prosecution. In case any doubt is created in the mind of the court, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused persons.