RAKESH JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by accused-appellant Rakesh Jain challenging the judgement dated 9.9.2016 whereby he has been convicted for offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10, 000, in default of which, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of one year. In addition, he was also convicted for offence u/s.201 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs.5, 000, in default of which he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of six months. He was also required to pay Rs.1, 00, 000 as compensation to Prem Bihari Gautam, father of the deceased.

(2.) Facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 4th February, 2011, Prem Bihari Gautam (PW7) submitted a written report (Ex.P12) to SHO Police Station Kotwali, Baran inter alia alleging therein that on 3rd February, 2011 at about 7.00 pm, his son Pankaj Gautam left the house for attending the marriage procession of his friend. His son was murdered and his dead body was found in burnt condition at Nareda Road on 4.2011. The keys and the shoes that Pankaj was wearing, were also found there. It appears that somebody murdered his son and thereafter burnt his body. Police on the basis of aforesaid report, lodged FIR No.84/2011 for offences u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC and started investigation. On conclusion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused-appellant for aforesaid offences before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions, was committed to the Court of Additional District Judge, Baran. The charge for the aforesaid cases was read over to the accused-appellant, who denied the same and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 25 witnesses and exhibited 54 documents. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused-appellant denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. The defence did not produce any witness, but exhibited 10 documents. The learned trial court after conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as indicated above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Shri Ashvin Garg, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has argued that the learned trial court has heavily relied on the evidence of various prosecution witnesses namely; Purshottam (PW2) , Chetan (PW6) , Prem Bihari (PW7) , Monika (PW8) , Smt. Premlata (PW12) , Umesh Gautam (PW17) and Deepak Sharma (PW18) to conclude that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of accused-appellant without having regard to the fact that initial version given by all these witnesses in their statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was entirely different inasmuch as the informant Prem Bihari Gautam (PW7) i.e. father of the accused-appellant himself did not in the written report set up the case that deceased left his house in the company of the accused, a story which he along with other prosecution witnesses sought to develop later. Later story was that the accused had come to the house of the deceased and borrowed a sum of Rs.1, 50, 000 from him and then accused with his 'muneem' Sonu left the house on one motorcycle and the deceased left on another motorcycle at the same time. It is contended that the written report (Ex.P12) was submitted by Prem Bihari Gautam on 4.2.2011. In his police statement (Ex.D1) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the evening of that very day i.e. 4.2.2011, complainant Prem Bihari sought to improve upon his version given in written report by stating that he has learnt that his son had gone with his friend Rakesh on his motorcycle. He had loaned certain money to Rakesh and had several times asked Rakesh to return the money. His son has been murdered by Rakesh, who also tried to burn his dead body to destroy the evidence. In the Court statement as PW7, Prem Bihari has made tremendous improvements upon his earlier version by stating that appellant came with his 'muneem' to his house around 7.30-8.00 pm. He took a sum of Rs.1, 50, 000 on loan from the deceased. He even went on to say that deceased himself had a sum of Rs.50, 000 and that he received Rs.1, 00, 000 from his mother and then gave it to the appellant and that deceased told his mother that he was going to attend the marriage procession of his friend and left on his own motorcycle while accused left on another motorcycle with his 'muneem' Sonu. This witness has concocted a false story of making telephonic call twice to Veer Pratap Singh (PW10) after giving money to the appellant. No such thing has been uttered by him in the written report (Ex.P2) or even in his police statement (Ex.D1) .