HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 775/2013

1.Hanuman son of Budh Ram @ Uda Ram, age 35 years, by

caste – Jangid, resident of Dhukiyo ka Bas, Chandrapura, Police

Station – Mandava, District – Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

2.Mustafa son of Mahabub Khan, age 30 years, By caste –

Kayamkhani Musalman, resident of Tai, Police Station- Bisau,

District – Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

(Both the appellants presently confined in Central Jail, Bikaner)

----Appellants

Versus

State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr Chain Singh Rathore

For Respondent(s)

:

Mrs Sonia Shandilya, PP – for the

State

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI

Judgment

18/08/2018

This appeal has been filed against the order dated

24.9.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2,

Jhunjhunu, convicting the appellants for offence under sections

450, 302, 376(2)(g), 376(2)(d), 392, 397, 342, 316 and 323 IPC

while acquitting them for the offence under section 307 IPC. They

have been sentenced for each offence separately and, therein, life

imprisonment has been inflicted for offence under sections 302,

(2 of 9)

[CRLA-775/2013]

376(2)(g) and 376(2)(d) IPC. For other offences, different

punishments have been inflicted.

FACTS OF THE CASE -

On 11.6.2011, an FIR was lodged by complainant

Pawan Kumar son of Devkaran stating that at around 4.00 PM two

persons visited my in-laws house and caused murder of mother-

in-law- Ramjeevani. The information about the incident was given

to him by one Sandeep Kumar on telephone. He went to the spot

and found mother-in-law in the pool of blood. His sister-in-law was

tied in other room.

The police registered FIR for offence under section 302

IPC and initiated the investigation. After investigation, they found

the appellants involved in the crime not only for offence under

section 302/34 IPC but for offence under sections 376(2)(g), 450,

342, 307, 392 and 397 IPC hence charge sheet was filed. The

court below then heard the matter for framing of charges and

framed it for the offence under sections 450, 302, 376(2)(g), 392,

397, 307 and 342 IPC vide order dated 29.2.2012. The charge

was then added vide order dated 3.4.2012 for offence under

section 376(2)(d) and 316 IPC.

The prosecution produced 22 witnesses and 85

documents to prove the case. The statement of the accused

appellants was recorded under section 313 CrPC. The trial court

framed five issues for adjudication and finding proof of the

(3 of 9)

[CRLA-775/2013]

charges for all the offences other than for offence under section

307 IPC, convicted and sentenced both the accused appellants.

ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANTS -

It is stated by learned counsel for accused appellants

that appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. The

aforesaid would come out from the statement of PW-1-Kumari

Ravina. She admitted that names of the accused were disclosed to

her by others. She was asked to name the accused and,

accordingly, made the statement against them. It is stated to be

nothing but planted story to prove prosecution case otherwise

nobody had seen the accused causing the offence. On the

aforesaid ground itself, appellants deserve to be acquitted of the

offence.

Further reference of statement of PW-20-Prahlad Rai

Jangid has been given. The said witness, in his cross examination,

admitted his signatures on the documents as written by the police.

He further admitted that the signatures were given by him on the

papers as and when required. Learned trial court yet relied his

statement to convict the appellants for the offence.

It is also stated that no motive or intention has come

so as to consider it to be a case of culpable homicide amounting to

murder. The knife, said to have been used in the crime, was not

brought by t