IMPORTANT POINT
A conviction under IPC requires reliable evidence and cannot solely rely on weapon recovery or forensic reports when eyewitnesses turn hostile.

JUDGMENT :

(Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) :

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

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal of the accused appellant may kindly be allowed and the accused appellant may be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and he be set at liberty.”

2. The accused-appellant laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Sessions Case No.121/12 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Ajmal), whereby the present accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below:

However, due to lack of evidence, the accused-appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 323 IPC, vide the impugned judgment.

3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, on 15.09.2012, Kanti (complainant & PW.12) gave an oral information to the police that last night (14.09.2012) at around 12 o'clock, when he and his son were sleeping in the house, from neighbourhood they heard the accused-appellant Ajmal, shouting and threatening his wife and children that he (accused-appellant) would kill them; whereupon, the wife of the accused-appellant alongwith her younger son Prakash, came to the house of the complainant, to save themselves from the accused-appellant.

3.1. It was further stated that the complainant and his son (Mohan) went to the accused-appellant’s house and upon reaching there, they asked the accused-appellant to stop shouting and have some food and sleep quietly, whereupon the accused-appellant hit the complainant on left side of his shoulder with a stick and asked the complainant and his son to run away; the accused-appellant (in drunken state), at that very moment, came with a sword (talwar) in his hand and attacked his (accused-appellant’s) daughter Ruchita who was sleeping on a cot, and killed her; thereafter, the accused-appellant tried to attack the complainant party, whereupon, the complainant and his son (Mohan) and Kamla (wife of accused-appellant/mother of deceased) ran away. Being aware of such a fearful environment, the father of the accused-appellant and other neighbours did not reach the place of incident.

3.2. On the basis of the aforementioned report, FIR No.179/2012 was registered for the offence under Sections 302 & 323 IPC and the investigation commenced accordingly. After due investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Sections 302 & 323 IPC.

3.3. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 323 IPC, the same upon being read over to the accused-appellant, were denied by him and he claimed trial, and the trial accordingly commenced.

3.4. During the trial, the prosecution produced 15 witnesses and exhibited documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-29). The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein while pleading not guilty, the accused 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 and sentenced the present accused-appellant, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2013, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accused-appellant. However, vide the same impugned judgment, accused-appellant was acquitted under Section 323 IPC, as mentioned above.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the eye witnesses namely PW.5-Kamla, PW.4-Mohan & PW.12-Kanti (Complainant) have turned hostile during trial. It was further submitted that the other prosecution witnesses namely PW.1-Shanti, PW.3-Gautam & PW.6-Heera, have also turned hostile.

4.1 It was also submitted that