RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 3-8-95 in sessions trial No. 18/94 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar, the appellant Ramesh Kumar has preferred this appeal on the facts and grounds mentioned hereinafter.

(2.) On 4-10-93, first information report was lodged by one Jagdish Lal that the accused Ramesh Kumar was married to Ramesh Rani, sister of the complainant Jagdish, has been killed by his brother-in-law present accused. On this information, investigation was conducted by the police in the incident of 4-10-93 at about 4.00 in the morning and on completion of the investigation, Ramesh Kumar his mother and his father were prosecuted for homicidal death amounting to murder of Ramesh Rani on 4-10-93 as aforesaid. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses, some of whom prove certain documents in connection with the crime and on appreciation of this oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion of guilt. Consistent with his conclusion of guilt, he passed an order of sentence convicting the accused Ramesh Kumar of murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code while acquitting the father and mother of the accused Ramesh Kumar. It is this judgment of conviction of Ramesh Kumar which is challenged in appeal on several grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.

(3.) It was contended by Shri K. K. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the evidence on record even if completely accepted is not enough to sustain an order of conviction under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the evidence on record was grossly insufficient to warrant conviction and the evidence on record is also wholly unreliable. In the alternative, it was also submitted by the learned counsel that even if the entire evidence as led by the prosecution is accepted as correct and trustworthy, yet conviction under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not permissible as the injury due to which, death has occurred was such as was not intended to be caused nor was such as was known to the accused as one which must result in death and consequently, the ingredient of S. 299 of the Indian Penal Code have not been established. He therefore, submitted only in the alternative that the case of the accused could at the most be covered by provisions of grievous hurt and the