SOHANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 03.05.1983 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, in Sessions Case No.20/1981, by which both the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. In addition thereto, accused-appellant Sohani was also convicted for offence under Section 201 of the IPC. However, accused-appellant Prahlad was acquitted of the charges for offence under Sections 201 and 379 of the IPC. For offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC, both accused-appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.250/- each; in default of payment of fine, they were required to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. However, for offence under Section 201 IPC, the trial court did not think it proper to award any separate sentence to accused-appellant Sohani.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to these appeals are that on 26.08.1980 one Harakchand (PW-14), Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Arai, submitted a written report to the Station House Officer, Kekri stating that at about 6-6.15 hours in the morning that day he was informed by Ratan Singh (PW-2) about a dead-body lying in the house of Rameshwar Jat. He, accompanied with other persons, went to the house of Rameshwar and found the dead-body of a woman enwrapped in a gunny-bag. On the said report, the police lodged a regular first information report on the same day and commenced investigation, in the course of which, it transpired that the dead-body was of Smt. Birdi. On postmortem (Exhibit P-19), the Doctor opined that she died on account of external injuries on her person.

(3.) THE police, after investigation, filed challan against both the accused-appellants for aforesaid offence. Learned trial court framed charges against both the accused for offence under Sections 302/120-B, 201 and 379 of the IPC. Accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, 26 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and 25 documents were exhibited. While the defence did not examine any witness, though exhibited five documents. On conclusion of trial, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated above. We have heard Shri Onkar Singh Lakhawat, learned Counsel for appellant Sohani in Appeal No.200/1983, Shri N.C. Choudhary and Shri Vijay Choudhary, learned counsel for appellant Prahlad in Appeal No.218/1983, and Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor.