MOHAMMAD RAFIQ J. - (1.) THIS appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated 10/02/2004 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track. No.2, Sikar in Sessions Case No.18/2003 by which, accused appellant Mohan Singh @Munna @Maanbahadur: was convicted for offence u/S.449 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years with fine of Rs.100/ and in default of payment thereof, he was sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; was convicted for offence u/S.302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/ and in default of payment thereof, he was sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; was convicted for offence u/S.457 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years with fine of Rs.100/ and in default of payment thereof, he was sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months; was convicted for offence u/S.380 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years with fine of Rs.100/ and in default of payment thereof, he was sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and was convicted for offence u/S.279 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three months. All the sentenced were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that one Omprakash, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Gokulpura telephonically gave information to S.H.O. Police Station Kotwali at 8.30 a.m. on 27/12/2002 that they should immediately reach Hotel Friends as something wrong has been happened to Bareth ji. Mehfuj Ali, SHO Police Station Kotwali made the entry to this effect in the Rojnamcha and reached the place of incident. Shrawan Kumar gave a written report to him there vide Exh.P.11 that he was working as Manager of the hotel for last six seven years. Baldev Singh, retired Thanedar was caretaker of the hotel for last three four years. Baldev Singh took his dinner and went to his room around 12 in the midnight to sleep. The informant also went to his room. Mahesh, an employee of the hotel, awakened him (informant. at 7.30 a.m. asking why Thanedar ji (Baldev Singh. did not wake up him on that day early morning as he used always do. They went to the room of Baldev Singh. It was locked from outside. When they peeped through window, they saw Baldev Singh lying dead on the bed. He had received a head injury. There were blood stains on the walls and a hammer was also lying by his side. Some unknown person had murdered Baldev Singh while he asleep. Scooter belonging to Baldev Singh with Registration No.RJV.7053, which used to remain parked in the verandah of the hotel, has also been stolen. Regular First Information Report was registered vide No.587/2002 with Police Station Kotwali, Sikar vide Exh.P.58 for offence u/Ss.302 and 379 IPC. The site plan (Exh.P.12. of the incident was prepared. The inspection of the hotel was prepared as Exh.P.1 and hammer was recovered and sealed vide Exh.P.2. One hand glove, which was smeared in blood and lying outside the hotel in the adjacent lane was also recovered vide Exh.P.3. The lock of Room No.53 was broken open and sealed vide Exh.P.5. Blood stains from the floor was recovered vide Exh.P.6 and from the wall vide Exh.P.7. The Vial, Mattress, Bed sheet and Trouser of deceased, which were all smeared in blood, were also recovered and sealed vide Exh.P.8. Underwear and Vest of the deceased was recovered and sealed vide Exh.P.10. Scooter of the deceased was found lying in the lane of Baluram Compounder, which was sealed vide Exh.P.13. The blood stains on the Scooter were recovered and sealed vide Exh.P.15.
(3.) THE police after investigation, filed challan against the accused appellant. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On committal of the case, the learned court below framed the charges against the accused appellant for offence u/Ss.449, 302, 457, 380 and 279 IPC but appellant denied to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced as many as 33 witnesses and exhibited 95 documents and produced 23 keys as articles and 14 other articles. The defence did not produce any witness but exhibited 11 documents. The trial court after conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant in the manner indicated above.;