HEMA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 14.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali in Sessions Case No.48/2009:

(2.) The deadbody of Gulab Singh was seen lying in the premises of the Ayurved Hospital, Village Falna in the morning of 18.08.2009. The FIR (Ex.P/42) came to be lodged by Shankar Singh (PW-3) at the Police Station Falna on 18.08.2009 at 9 am. in which, suspicion was cast that some unknown persons had murdered his brother Gulab Singh. The house of the appellants is located adjacent to the Hospital and thus, the finger of suspicion was pointed towards them. The prosecution claims that a sniffer dog was summoned from Pali with its trainer Raghunath Singh (PW-22). The dog was taken around the place of incident and during this process, the dog went inside the house of Hema Ram and caught hold of the dress of the accused. The deadbody of Gulab Singh was subjected to postmortem through a Medical Board constituted at the Government Hospital Bali. The Medical Board issued the report (Ex.P/18) opining that the cause of death of Gulab Singh was asphyxia due to strangulation. A cut wound and a bruise were seen on his neck in form of external injuries. The accused appellant Hema Ram was arrested at 05.00 pm vide arrest memo (Ex.15) dated 18.08.2009. The accused appellant Jagdish was arrested at 04.00 pm vide arrest memo (Ex.16) dated 18.08.2009. The I.O. (PW-21) Prem Singh (SHO of the Police Station Bali) claims that the clothes worn by accused Hema Ram at the time of his arrest were blood stained which were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/17). The accused Jagdish allegedly gave an information (Ex.P/44) to the I.O. regarding having concealed his blood stained clothes in his almirah and in furtherance of such information, the blood stained pant and shirt of Jagdish were seized from his house vide seizure memo (Ex.P/9). The I.O. further claims that on the very same day i.e. 18.08.2009, the accused Jagdish gave information (Ex.P/46) regarding he having concealed a Kunt (sharp weapon) used to assault Shri Gulab Singh. In furtherance of such information, the Kunt was recovered vide recovery memo (Ex.P/12). The statements of various witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the I.O. proceeded to file a charge-sheet against two appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.

(3.) Since the offence was sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, District Pali. The learned Trial Judge framed charge against the accused for the offence mentioned above. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited 47 documents in support of its case. The accused were subjected to questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the allegations appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and after appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Judge proceeded to convict and sentence the accused appellants as above. Hence this appeal.