ANIL @ LALA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been filed by accused-appellants Anil @ Lala and Kamla against common judgment and order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu (for short 'the trial court') whereby the trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated below:

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that one Bheeva Ram (P.W.10) submitted a written report to S.H.O., Police Station Udaipurwati at 5.10 P.M. on 06.09.2009 (at the bottom of the written report date was indicated as 05.09.2009) alleging therein that he had one son Chittar and three daughters, who all were married. His son had two sons and two daughters, who all were unmarried. Name of wife of his son was Kamla, who belongs to Nawalgarh. He owns agricultural land admeasuring 25 bighas in Village Chirana whereupon houses were constructed. A piece of land admeasuring 8 bigha was situated half a kilometer away from his house. Out of 25 bigha of land, 15 bigha of land and 8 bigha of land was being cultivated by his son Chittar. He had sold the land situated in Village Chirana for a sum of Rs. 35 lacs and purchased a residential pot in Nawalgarh town out of the sale proceeds thereof. Those Plots were purchased in his own name and his wife's name Lalki Devi, in the name of his son Chittar and in the name of his son's wife Kamla. Since then, Sundarlal, father-in-law of his son, who is resident of Nawalgarh started visiting his house frequently. He used to advise him (informant) that the land situated in Village Chirana should be sold out and he would get him some other land in Nawalgarh at cheaper rates. The informant refused to act according to his advise. Sundarlal thereupon quarreled with him. The informant never had any dispute with his son. In fact, he had given house built by him to his son and his family where they were residing. The informant along with his wife was staying in a kuchha house about 20-25 feet away. In the previous night of the incident, Chittar, his wife and children were at home. While wife of the informant was sleeping in his house, informant himself had gone to his agricultural field and slept there. In the morning, when he came back home, his wife Lalki Devi told him that she could not sleep the whole night because of loud noises that were coming from the house of Chittar. In the morning around 10.00-11.00 A.M., his grandson Anil told his elder brother Jaisa Ram that he saw a freshly dug pit in their argicultural field, which was covered by sand. Jaisa Ram then asked Anil to dig the pit, which he refused to do so. Then the informant dug the sand with 'fawda'. When he did so, a dead body was found buried in the pit, which the informant immediately identified to be that of his son Chittar. His son had sustained multiple number of incised wounds. They immediately called the Sarpanch of the village and informed the police about the incident. It was alleged that wife of the deceased, i.e. Kamla was a woman of bad character and that he had doubt that she with the help of some other person committed murder of his son and buried his body in the sand.

(3.) On the basis of aforesaid written report, the police registered FIR No. 260/2009 (Exhibit P-25) for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and commenced the investigation. During the course of investigation, accused-appellant Anil Meena @ Lala, Kamla as also son of the deceased and Kamla, Anil Saini were arrested. Since, Anil Saini was juvenile, his matter was sent to Juvenile Justice Board concerned for further proceedings. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet before the trial court. The trial court framed charges against accused-appellants for offence under Sections 302 or Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, to secure conviction of the accused-appellants, produced 15 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents. Thereafter, the accused-appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence. In defence no witness was produced, but 5 documents were exhibited. On conclusion of trial, the trial court vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2011 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. Hence, these appeals.