HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 201/2018

Jitendra @ Chandi S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh R/o Jatiyana Police Station

Kherthal District Alwar, Presently R/o Tapukada District Alwar,

(At present in Sub Jail Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar)

----Accused-Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Harendra Singh, Advocate through

video-conferencing

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Javed Choudhary, Additional

Government Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Judgment

Date of Judgment

31st January, 2022

***

Per : Chandra Kumar Songara, J.

Instant criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of the accused-

appellant, namely Jitendra @ Chandi son of Shri Bhagwan Singh

assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of

sentence dated 17.03.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional

Sessions Judge, No.2, Tijara District Alwar, in Sessions Case

No.06/2017, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted and

sentenced as under :-

(2 of 15)

[CRLAD-201/2018]

Offence U/s.

Imprisonment

Fine

Sentence in default of

payment

302 I.P.C.

Life imprisonment

Rs.5000/- To further undergo two

months simple imprisonment.

201 I.P.C.

Five years rigorous

imprisonment

Rs.5000/- To further undergo two

months simple imprisonment

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows :-

Complainant – Kushal Singh (PW-3) had submitted a

written-report (Exhibit-P/5) to the S.H.O. Police Station Tapukada

District Alwar alleging therein that Seema daughter of Makhan Singh,

was married to Jitendra. After marriage, Jitendra used to beat Seema,

as a result of which she came to the residence of her Mausi (maternal-

aunt). Jitendra also came there and started living with her. He used to

beat her after consuming liquor. Few days ago, Jitendra took Seema at

his house after enticing her and tried to kill her by beating. Upon this,

Gurmukh Singh had beaten Jitendra. Yesterday, on 21.10.2016 at about

03:00 P.M. the landlord informed that the room is locked for four days

and there is foul smell coming from the room. Police was called and the

lock was broken. Dead-body of Seema was found there but Jitendra had

already absconded from the place of occurrence.

On the aforesaid information, an F.I.R. bearing registration

No.325/2016 (Exhibit-P/6) came to be lodged at Police Station,

Tapukada District Alwar for offences punishable under Sections 302 and

201 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the Police

presented the charge-sheet against the accused-person.

Charges were framed by the learned trial Court for offences

punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. The accused pleaded

not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.

(3 of 15)

[CRLAD-201/2018]

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as

many as seventeen-witnesses, during trial. The accused when examined

under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., after closing of the prosecution evidence,

pleaded that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. He

chose to lead evidence in his defence but did not produce any defence

evidence.

After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Public

Prosecutor for the State & learned defence counsel and after

appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court

proceeded to convict and sentenced the accused-appellant, namely

Jitendra @ Chandi, as stated herein-above. Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant has

submitted that the appellant was not present at the residence at the

time of incident or even 15-20 days prior to the alleged incident.

Counsel has further submitted that the entire case of t