RAM KALYAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY , learned Counsel Shri Mehta did not challenge the order of conviction in this appeal, but only requested that sentence be reduced to the sentence as already undergone in view of the fact that alleged offence was committed way back on 24.4.1981 i.e., almost 17 years from today. In ordinary circumstances, this Court would have accepted the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, and reduced the sentence to the sentence as already undergone, but this is not a case where any lenient view can be taken in the matter. When it was made clear that this Court would not reduce the sentence to the sentence as already undergone, then Mr. Mehta submitted that he wants to argue the matter and he was allowed to address the Court. He tried to challenge the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court under Section 411 IPC. After arguing the matter, he submitted that file has come to him from the Office of late Shri M.M. Singhvi, therefore, notice be issued to the appellant accused to engage other advocate. Before this also many other cases coming from the office of Late Shri M.M. Singhvi were argued by learned Counsel Shri Mehta and I passed the order also. Under the circumstances, the request to issue notice to the appellant accused is refused.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the information was already with the police, therefore, recovery 'Parcha bayan' made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was false. Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 1971 SC page 1871, he submitted that the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused under Section 411 IPC. This submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there was sufficient evidence on record. I.O. has clearly stated in his evidence that the instance of the accused only property was recovered just outside the house of the accused. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that the gold and silver ornaments of the deceased Nandu were not recovered from the accused. That itself is no ground to dis -believe the prosecution case that remaining articles belonging to the deceased were found from the accused. Gold and Silver can be melted. In fact the murder of deceased Nandu was committed on 24.4.1981. The prosecution case was that after she entered the house of accused nobody has seen her coming out alive from his house. It is a different matter that the Trial Court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. For the first time the name of the accused came to be disclosed only on 13.6.1981. In absence of acquittal appeal filed by the State for the offence under Sections 302, 201, IPC against the accused, I would not go into the correctness of the same and make any comment. But, suffice it to say that learned Trial Judge after considering the evidence on record rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 411 IPC and sentenced him to suffer two years R.I. though the maximum punishment is three years R.I.

(3.) IN view of the above discussion, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The accused is on bail. He shall surrender within four weeks from today, failing which non -bailable warrant of arrest be issued against him.