SUKH LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order of conviction dated 14.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sagwara, District Dungarpur in Sessions Case No. 20/2015 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two years' additional rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution case emerges from the complaint (Ex.P/1) filed by one Vaja (P.W. 1) on 03.03.2015 at around 10.00 A.M. stating therein that his daughter Lalita was married for last 15-20 years with Subhash. From the said wedlock, a son named Rahul was born. Subhash left his daughter Lalita 15 years back and thereafter, she along with her son Rahul was living with him in Aadiwat. His daughter was a daily wage labour and was staying in his house. On 02.03.2015 at around 9.00 - 10.00 P.M., she prepared her bed and slept along with her son Rahul. He was sleeping on the cot next to them. Sometime late in the night, his daughter left the house without informing them and in the morning at around 7.00 A.M., the people of the nearby vicinity informed that the dead body of Lalita was lying in the field of Kalu. On getting this information, he along with Rahul went to the field and saw that his daughter was lying in a pool of blood with injuries caused by stone on her head. They also saw the marks of dragging in the field. She was murdered by some unknown persons last night and her dead body was thrown in the field. There were other injury marks on the body of Lalita.

(3.) The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and he was confronted with the evidence adduced against him during the course of trial to which he denied and stated that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in the present case. However, the accused-appellant did not wish to lead any oral evidence but exhibited Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/3 documents in the defence.