RAJA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 12.07.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No. 40/2009(39/2009) whereby the accused appellants were convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC simpliciter and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo one month's imprisonment.

(2.) Facts of the case as emerging from the record are that on 112008, one Roshan Chaudhary (P.W.1) submitted a written report (Exhibit P-1) to S.H.O., Police Station Karni Vihar, Jaipur stating therein that on that day at about 8.00 A.M. while he was coming from Kana Vihar Road towards highway, he saw a dead body soaked in blood lying near the railing of express highway. When he went closer, he saw that the body was still bleeding from his neck. It appeared that someone, after murdering that person, had thrown his body at that place. Dead body was still lying at that place. Therefore, action be taken. On the basis of aforesaid written report (Exhibit P-1), police registered FIR No.157/2008 (Exhibit P-2) for offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC. Accused-appellants were arrested. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellants for the aforementioned offences before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and the case was thereafter committed to District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan and was subsequently made over to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 for trial. The trial court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused appellants, which they denied and claimed to be tried. accused appellants were discharged from the charge under Section 201 IPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced 16 witnesses and exhibited 46 documents. Thereafter accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence. Defence did not produce any witness but exhibited two documents. The trial court vide judgment dated 107.2011 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as indicated above. Hence, these appeals.

(3.) Mr. Dinesh Kala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Raja Ram and Mr. Vijay Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Kathhin Singh @ Kathan Singh argued that both the accused-appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case only because the police was not able to nab the real culprit. Trial court has failed to appreciate statements of prosecution witnesses in their true perspective and has committed error in convicting the accused-appellants for offence under Section 302 IPC simpliciter. Entire case of the prosecution hinges on circumstantial evidence. Chain of circumstances taken to have been proved against the appellants by the trial court has several missing links. Most significant circumstance against the accused-appellants relied by the trial court is that of evidence of last seen given by Sheela Bai (P.W.11) wife of the deceased. She has stated that on 11.12.2008 accused-appellants came to her residence along with her husband. Raja Ram and Kathhin Singh @ Kathan Singh came to her room with liquor. They consumed liquor with her husband in the evening and thereafter Raja Ram told that they would take both of them (this witness and her husband) to bus stand as they both wanted to go to their native place. This witness later stated that they asked only her husband and not her to go with them to the bus stand. Only her husband then accompanied them for bus stand. Both of them returned back to her room after 2? hours and informed that they left her husband in a bus at the bus stand and he had gone to his native. While Raja Ram went to his room, Kathhin Singh @ Kathan Singh stayed with her in her room. In the morning, Raja Ram and Kathhin Singh went for work. Kathhin Singh took away her mobile phone, therefore, she could not talk to anybody at her in-laws place. After six days, photograph of his deceased husband was published in the newspaper. Residents and children of the colony informed her about photograph of deceased-husband in the newspaper. She went for search of Kathhin Singh, but he could not find her. Thereafter, she returned back and started crying. Even as she was contemplating to go to police station for lodging FIR, the police people came to her room. Police took her to police station where they showed photograph of her husband whom she identified to be her husband. Thereafter, the police took her to S.M.S. Hospital and made her to identify dead body of her husband. This witness also stated that about one month ago, his husband picked up quarrel with Kathhin Singh as he (her husband) used to doubt her chastity assuming that she was having relations with Kathhin Singh.