- (1.) By this appeal appellant-accused has assailed the findings of judgment dated 24.10.2007, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu, in Sessions Case No. 9/2007 convicting the accused under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and further to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine. In brief, the story of the prosecution reveals that complainant Bhinva Ram submitted Ex.P.1 a report in writing before the Saandhwa, Police Station that the complainant was a resident of village Oontalar, his son Girdhari was residing in a Dhani near field-well and his grand son Rugharam was living with him and used to go school but on 18.01.2007, Rugharam did not go to school because of ear-ache, on that day Asha Ram S/o Jamuna Ram took Rugharam at about 8.30 morning and both Asha Ram and Rugharam were seen together in the house of Asha Ram at about 12 to 12:30 on 18.01.2007, this was witnessed by the complainant as well as by several persons including Bheraram, Aashu Ram and Harjiram and at about 4-4.30 PM, he witnessed Asha Ram standing in his house alone and a woman was also there but Rugharam was not there. He thought that Rugharam might be there inside the house, on that day his son Girdhari had been to Sujangarh to attend Peshi, in the evening, suddenly, he was called there by police and found there dead body of his grand son Raghu Ram, he lost his senses and further a suspicion was cast on Asha Ram and FIR No.6/2007 was registered with police station Saandhwa under Sections 302, 120-B of IPC, after investigation charge-sheet was filed against accused Asha Ram.
(2.) Trial was conducted under Sections 302 and 377/511 of IPC, the prosecution produced eighteen witnesses and got exhibited thirty five documents in the evidence, further the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. but except denial and alleging false implication, no explanation under Section 106 of Evidence was tendered as to how deceased died in his premises and the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing him as detailed above.
(3.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Public Prosecutor and examined the record thoroughly, learned Counsel for the appellantaccused has contended that the learned trial Court has erroneously passed the impugned order by convicting the accused, there was no such evidence to connect the appellant-accused with the alleged crime, so it is not just. There was also no motive, whatsoever and the postmortem report too discloses that the cause of death was strangulation, victim might have committed suicide for reasons best known to him, in absence of the appellantaccused.;