SUMAN DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the common judgement dated 19.12.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur in Sessions Case No.09/2009 whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted in the following manner:

(2.) A written report was submitted by Rohitash (PW14) to SHO Police Station Kotputli at 09.30 AM on 03.12008 inter alia alleging therein that in the morning at 7.00 AM on that day, Surendra Compounder informed him that his (informant's) brother Mahesh has been murdered by someone. He came with Surendra on his vehicle from Balaji I.T.I. to his house, at that time several persons assembled in the house and when he went inside the house, he saw the dead body of his brother Mahesh lying on the ground. Blood was found spread on the floor. Mahesh was having deep injuries on his neck, as a result of which, the skin of neck was torn and the bones of neck were visible. On the fateful night, deceased Mahesh's daughter Komal and wife Suman were also sleeping in the same room. His brother Mahesh has been killed by someone by causing an injury on the neck. Mahesh's wife Suman knew everything. Suman had illicit relations with Mohan Sharma and other persons. The murder of his brother was committed owing to such illicit relations. Action be therefore taken against the culprit.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid report, the police registered FIR No.820/2008 for offence u/s.302 IPC and investigation commenced. Police conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellants for offence u/s.302, 120B IPC in the Court of Magistrate, who took cognizance of offence and the offences being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur for trial. The trial court framed charges for offence u/ss.301 and 120B of IPC against accused-appellant Suman and u/s.302/120B against accusedappellant Mohan Lal Sharma. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced 29 witnesses and exhibited 59 documents. The accused in their examination u/s.313 Cr.P.C. alleged false implication and pleaded innocence. The defence in support of his case, produced Bablu Sharma as DW1 and exhibited four documents. The learned trial court on conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accusedappellants in the manner as indicated above. Hence these appeals.