Advocates:
['DINESH KALA', '', 'ANSHUMAN SAXENA', 'P P']

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 434/2009

Kamal Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan

1/11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT

JAIPUR.

JUDGMENT

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 434/2009

(Kamal Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan)

Date of Judgment

:::::::

08/01/2016

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Mr. Anshuman Saxena, for the appellant.

Ms. Sonia Sandilya, Public Prosecutor for the State.

By the Court (Per Prakash Gupta,J):-

1.

This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 06/02/2009 of

the learned Special Court (Fake Currency Cases) Jaipur City, Jaipur in

sessions case No. 6/2008 whereby, the learned trial Court convicted the

accused appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. He has been

sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- (Five

Hundard Only) and in default, to further undergo, one month simple

imprisonment.

2.

One Sh. Amit Khinchi (PW.1) submitted a written report (Ex.P.1) to

SHO, P.S. Kotwali, Jaipur on 14/12/2007 to the effect that, on the said

day at about 8:30 PM her sister Kanta telephonically informed him that

her husband had throttled her younger daughter Kalli and that she was

lying unconscious. He immediately rushed to her home at A-2873, Bhindo

Ka Rasta, Indra Bazar, Jaipur. She was weeping and her daughter Kalli

aged two years was lying unconscious and blood was oozing out from her

mouth. Kanta further told him that her husband Kamal Kumar came from

outside and started beating her, upon which, she ran out side the house.

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 434/2009

Kamal Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan

2/11

Both their daughters one Vanshita aged four years and Kalli aged two

years remained in side the house. Thereafter, he along with Kanta

immediately went to Indra Bazar, Jaipur, where a Police Gypsy was

available. Sh. Raghuveer Singh was also informed about the incident.

After this, they left for S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur where, kalli was declared

dead by the doctors. It is also stated that the accused used to beat his

sister Kanta every day and on the fateful day he committed the murder

of their daughter by throttling. Action be taken.

3.

On receipt of said written report, a formal first information report

No. 477/2007 (Ex.P.6) was registered for offence under Section 302 of

the IPC and investigation commenced. The postmortem of the dead body

was conducted on 15/12/2007 vide (Ex.P.11). The accused was arrested

on 15/12/2007 vide (Ex.P.9) Arrest and Personal Search Memo. The

Police, after completion of investigation filed a charge sheet against him

for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The charge against the accused

was framed for aforementioned offence to which he pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 13

witnesses and got 11 documents exhibited. The defence did not produce

any evidence in support of its case. The learned trial Court on conclusion

of the trial convicted and sentenced the accused appellant in the manner

indicated above. Hence this appeal.

4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant Sh.

Anshuman Saxena that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate

the statement of the prosecution witnesses in its right perspective and

thus, the conviction of the accused appellant is bad in law. It is

submitted that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case against

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 434/2009

Kamal Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan

3/11

the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be

convicted, solely on the basis of the weakness of his defence. The

learned trial Court utterly failed to consider this aspect of the case that

material witnesses i.e. Amit Khinchi (PW.1), Smt. Kanta Devi (PW.3),

Rajendra Kumar (PW.4), Smt. Manni Devi (PW.8), Suresh Kumar (PW.9)

and Kumari Vanshita (PW.11) have not supported the prosecution story

and have turned hostil