TEJ BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar, the appellant named above preferred this appeal on the ground mentioned in the memo of appeal as also argued at the time of final hearing of the appeal.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the prosecution stated briefly are that on 9.8.1994 at about 7.00 a.m Bachchu Ram PW 1 lodged the first information report which was later on exhibited as Ex. R 2 in the Kotwali, Police Station, Sri Ganganagar City where he mentioned that he is working as Chawkidar and in the night of 8th Aug., 1994 left for his duty at about 10.30 in the night leaving his wife and son sleeping outside the house. At about 11.00 p.m., he came back to fill up water in the house and found the wife and son sleeping. When he returned at 12.30 in the night, he again found the wife and son sleeping. He has then said that when he came finally at 4.15 in the morning, he found his son sleeping on the cot outside the house, the house door was partially open and when he went inside the house, he found the wife lying dead, her clothes were disarrayed and therefore, he feels that his wife has been killed by some unknown person. On the basis of this information, investigation was commenced by the police and the accused was prosecuted. The accused was arrested on 9th Aug., 1994 at 8.00 p.m. vide Ex.R 8. It was found that there are certain injuries on the person of the accused. Ultimately, the matter was committed to sessions and evidence of as many as 10 witnesses was recorded. The witnesses prove certain documents on perusal of which along with the oral testimony, the learned Judge came to the conclusion of guilt as aforesaid and convicted the accused of having committed rape and murder punishable under Secs. 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) It is this order which is assailed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused on the ground that there is no evidence enough to convict the accused, the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and the circumstantial evidence does not establish beyond reasonable doubt the involvement and guilt of the accused in commission of the crime. Several questions remain unanswered and consequently, reasonable doubt is created regarding correctness of the order of conviction and therefore, order be set aside and the accused by acquitted.