HANUMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HANUMAN Singh, appellant herein, was put to trial for having committed murder of Laxman before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Ajmer, who vide judgment dated October 12, 2001 convicted and sentenced him under section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) IN the blue print, drawn for the purpose of erecting superstructure of prosecution case, parents of the deceased viz. Mohan Singh and Lali Devi were not shown as eye witnesses of the occurrence but they became eye witnesses at the trial. Anand, the brother of Laxman, who was not named as witnesses, also became eye witness of the incident. IN the written report lodged by Mohan Singh on June 23, 1997 at 12 AM at Police Station Alwar gate Ajmer, it was stated that his son Laxman, who had left the house at 8 AM was seen by him around 10. 30 PM sitting on a slab near his house. He (Mohan Singh) then went to sleep. Around 11. 30 PM on hearing noise of quarrel, he suddenly woke up and peeped from the window. He saw that Hanuman was beating to Laxman. One Dharmendra was also there, who pursuaded Hanuman to stop the quarrel. Hanuman then accompanied Dharmendra and went to the house. After some time he (Mohan Singh) woke up his wife, who proceeded to the road and found Laxman lying in a pool of blood. He himself went out noticed that Laxman was dead. On that report a case under section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Dead body was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, appellant was 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) Ajmer. Charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 12 witnesses. IN the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellant claimed innocence. One witness in support of his defence was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) IN the case on hand, as already noticed the incident occurred in the odd hours of night. There was no source of light at the place of incident. The three eye witnesses examined by the prosecution are close relatives of the deceased. These witnesses were not projected as eye witnesses by the INvestigating Officer, but at the trial these witnesses changed their role and became eye witnesses. There are material contradictions in their statements that affects the veracity of the evidence. It appears that these witnesses although did not see the incident they had strong suspicion against the appellant.