PRAKASH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Sec. 374(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 has been preferred by the appellant Prakash Chandra against the judgement dtd. 29/04/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.39/2013, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

(2.) The prosecution story, in short, emanates from a written report (Ex.P.4) filed by PW.3 Pappu Lal to the SHO, Police Station Fatehnagar on 22/1/2008 alleging inter alia that Smt. Nani Bai W/o Late Shri Moti Ji Mali who was his distant relative, was missing from the house since evening of 19/01/2008. She was searched by family members in the vicinity and at the houses of relatives but she could not be traced till 21/01/2008. Therefore, a Missing Person Report was lodged at Police Station Fatehnagar on 22/01/2008. Thereafter, entire family went to search Nani Bai. While searching in the fields located on the rear side of her house, certain trampled plants of mustard were seen. They became suspicious and went further into the field amidst standing crops where certain plants were trampled and fallen flat. Upon looking 50 feet away from that place, they saw the dead body of Nani Bai lying on the ground. Both the legs above ankle were amputated and there was a cut injury on the left side of her cheek. She had been murdered by some unknown person. Police Station Faten Nagar was immediately informed. Police came on the spot. Narayan Singh, Narlal Mali, Ratanlal etc. also reached at the place of incident. The ornaments usually worn by Nani Bai were missing from the body.

(3.) On the aforesaid written report, a formal FIR No.13/2008 was registered against the accused for the offence under Sec. 302/201 IPC at the Police Station Faten Nagar, District Udaipur. After completion of the investigation, police filed a charge sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Ss. 302, 201, 397 and 398 IPC. Learned Trial Court framed, read over and explained the charges for the offence under Ss. 302, 201, 397 and 398 I.P.C to the accused-appellant who denied the charges and sought trial. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 27 witnesses and 40 documents were exhibited. The accused-appellant was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial which he denied and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.