DILIP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.9.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Dungarpur in Sessions Case No. 60/2007 (50/2007), vide which the accused-appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.

(2.) As per the prosecution story, the complainant Umesh Kumar (PW-1) submitted a written report on 27.6.2007 at the Police Station Aspur that on 22.6.2007, the husband of his sister, namely, Dilip Kumar came to their house around 5.00-5.30 P.M. on his motorcycle and called out to his younger brother Hitesh and took him on his motorcycle. It was further alleged that his sister Vanita was staying with him in his house since last 5-6 months as her husband Dilip Kumar used to beat her. Dilip Kumar used to threat them with dire consequences in case, they did not send their sister with him. When his brother did not return for 2 days, he and his family members went to village Ramgarh in search of their brother. They met Dilip Kumar while he was sitting in his shop. However, Dilip Kumar expressed his ignorance about whereabouts of Hitesh. Subsequently, on 25.6.2007, they received information that a dead body was found on the back water of Som Kamla Aamba. It was alleged that Dilip Kumar had committed the murder of his brother Hitesh and thereafter threw the dead body in the water and it was in pursuance to the said complaint that an F.I.R. was registered under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused-appellant Dilip Kumar.

(3.) The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited as many as 31 documents. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, the accused-appellant simply denied the allegation but in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that he has been implicated in this false case as they want their sister Vanita to divorce him. The Trial Court convicted the accused-appellant on the basis of last seen evidence.