PAPPU KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.04.2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Tonk (Rajasthan) in Sessions Cases No. 39/2010 (52/2010) whereby the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant under section 302 IPC to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default of payment of fine the accused appellant was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years.

(2.) Facts of the case briefly stated are that the complainant Sabir Hussain (PW14) submitted a written report (Ex.P21) to S.H.O., Police Station Kotwali, Tonk at 1:00 P.M on 25.5.2010 narrating that his sister's marriage was solemnized with Pappu Khan s/o Faqir Mohammad in the year 2000. He alleged that from the very starting behavior of Pappu and his family members with his sister was not good. She was subjected to harassment and cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. Moreover, about three years ago, Pappu Khan and her in-laws gave her beating in connection with demand of dowry and she was forcefully moved out of the matrimonial home. For that incident an FIR was also lodged with Police Station Kotwali. Moreover, an application under section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 was also filed thereafter and both the matters are pending in the concerned Court. On 23.05.2010 at about 10:00 P.M Pappu Khan and his family members came to take his sister to their house. They were counselled by the elder persons and it was assured that her sister Seema would be well treated, hence they agreed and allowed her to go along-with Pappu Khan. Pappu took Seema and all four children along-with luggage and further assured that he would be coming to the Court next day on 24.05.2010 to submit compromise in writing. When on 24.05.2010 Pappu did not come to the Court, the informant made inquiries. Then Pappu told that he would surely come on the next day. The complainant further alleged that in the night at about 10-10:30 P.M. due to certain anxiety he decided to go to his sister's place and on the way his 'Bhanja' also met him at Ghanta Ghar. When they reached at Seema's in-laws place, they came to know that Pappu and Seema were living on rent, in the nearby house of Sunari. When he knocked the door, he heard certain loud noises from inside. They pushed the door forcefully and entered in the room and found that Pappu, Salim, Sahadut and Nafis were beating Seema. Pappu was having a knife in his hand and he was uninterruptedly causing knife blows to her. His sister fall down and started bleeding. All these persons then ran away from there. His sister was taken to the hospital with the help of police persons where she was declared brought dead. Thus, after hatching conspiracy Pappu, Salim, Sahadat and Nafis have committed the murder of his sister.

(3.) On recording the said written report, a case bearing No. 72/2010 (Ex.P30) for the offence under Section 302 IPC was registered. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against accused appellant under section 302 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. After taking cognizance in the matter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Tonk from where the case was transferred to the learned trial court. The learned trial court thereafter framed the charge against the accused appellant under section 302 IPC, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case got the statements of seventeen witnesses recorded and thirty three documents exhibited. Thereafter, the accused appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 In defence, the accused appellant produced two witnesses DW1-Sayyed Ahmed and DW2- Mohd. Wahid. The learned trial court after hearing the final arguments, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the charges levelled against him vide impugned judgment dated 29.04.2011. The accused appellant aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has preferred instant criminal appeal.