IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that consistent eyewitness testimony and established motive are critical in upholding a murder conviction under IPC Section 302.

JUDGMENT :

Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this appeal of the Appellant may kindly ordered to be allowed by way of setting aside the Judgment and Conviction Order-Dated 19.04.2017 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, in Original Sessions Case No.43/2015 (C.I.S. No.45/2015).

Further the accused Appellant may kindly be declared acquitted from the charges leveled against him. The record of the Court below may also kindly be called for.

Any other appropriate order or relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the eyes of law, may kindly be passed in favor of the Appellant.”

2. The accused-appellant laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, in Sessions Case No.43/2015 (CIS No.45/2015), whereby the present accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below:

Conviction under Section Sentence Fine

302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to undergo further One Year S.I.

3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, on 22.09.2015, one Mansingh (complainant) submitted a written report before the Police Station, Gogamedi stating therein that the complainant was working at Bhadra Gaushala and as usual, on the said date, he reached Gaushala at 7:30 a.m. It was further stated that on 18.09.2015, his father, namely, Rajendra went to sell the female camel (Utani) at Gogamedi; the complainant’s mother Kalawati, wife Sunita were at the agricultural field; grandfather Sukhram was sleeping in the house, and at that time, the complainant’s son (Tony), who at the relevant time aged 7 years was with the complainant’s grandfather.

3.1. At 11:30 a.m., the complainant received a telephonic call from his cousin (Uncle’s son-Ashok @ Kishor), to the effect that at around 10-10:30 a.m., an unknown person murdered the complainant’s grandfather Sukhram, by inflicting injuries on his head and neck by using a sharp-edged weapon. Upon which, the complainant rushed towards his home at Village Gheu and upon reaching there, his minor son Tony informed that Rohtash(accused-appellant), living in neighbourhood, and armed with an Axe, had entered the house, and as per him (minor son), the accused-appellant was the person, who murdered the complainant’s grandfather.

3.2. It was also stated in the report that at around a month ago (preceding the date of lodging of the report), the accused-appellant, while standing in front of the complainant’s house, abused his grandfather, whereupon, the complainant’s grandfather slapped the accused-appellant; the same led to an enmity between the accused-appellant and the deceased, and thereafter, the accused-appellant committed the murder of the complainant’s grandfather.

3.3. On the basis of the aforementioned report, an FIR bearing No.200/2015 for the offence under Section 302 IPC was registered, and the investigating commenced accordingly. After due investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC and the trial commenced thereafter. The learned Trial framed charge against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the same upon being read over to the accused-appellant, was denied by him and he claimed trial, and the trial accordingly commenced.

3.4. During the trial, the prosecution produced 17 witnesses and exhibited 44 documents; in defence, 01 witness was produced and 01 document was exhibited for examination. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein while pleading not guilty, the accused-appellant stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case.

3.5. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, convicted