Ajay Kumar @ Jagveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- shiv kumar sharma, j.1. jagveer singh, the appellant herein, was born in village majhola police station hathras junction (up). he came to jaipur with fictitious name ajay kumar and became tenant of suraj devi (now deceased) in her house no. 505 gangauri bazar. on february 17, 2001 suraj devi was found killed in her room which was locked from out side. on the allegation of murder of suraj devi, the appellant was put to trial before the learned special judge (fake currency cases) jaipur city, jaipur, who vide judgment dated september 5, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:under section 302 ipc:to suffer imprisonment for life and fine rs. 3000/-, in default to further suffer three and half months rigorous imprisonment.under section 394 ipc:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine rs. 2,000/- in default to further suffer three months rigorous imprisonment.under section 449 ipc:to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine rs. 1,000/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.substantive sentence were ordered to run concurrently.2. on the written report of informant virendra kumar (pw. 5) case under section 302 ipc was registered at police station kotwali jaipur on february 17, 2001. dead body of suraj devi got recovered from her kitchen. necessary memos were drawn. the appellant, who was the tenant of suraj devi, was arrested and at his instance weapon allegedly used in commission of offence and some ornaments got recovered. after usual investigation charge sheet was filed. in due course the case came up for trial before the learned special judge (fake currency cases) jaipur city jaipur. charges under sections 449, 394 and 302 ipc were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. the prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 20 witnesses. in the explanation under section 313 cr.p.c., the appellant claimed innocence. no witness in defence was however examined. learned trial judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.3. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the material on record.4. in the absence of any eye witness to prove its case the prosecution relied upon the following circumstances to connect the appellant with the offence alleged against him:(i) death of suraj devi was homicidal in nature.(ii) iron moosali stained with human blood allegedly used in commission of the crime got recovered at the instance of the appellant;(iii) clothes stained with human blood got recovered at the instance of the appellant.(iv) ornaments belonging to the deceased got recovered from sarafa shop at the instance of appellant.(v) on the date of incident the appellant was residing as tenant in the house of the deceased.(vi) past conduct of the appellant.(vii) false plea of alibi raised by the appellant.5. the prosecution has established that death of suraj devi was homicidal in nature. as per post mortem report (ex. p. 43) she received following injuries:1. oval crushed lacerated wound in left side forehead 3cm x 1 cm x bone deep with clotted blood caused by blunt object2. red bruise with swelling just rt. side of mid line forehead 2 cm diameter caused by blunt object.3. red bruise outer end of rt. eye brow 2 cm diameter caused by blunt object.4. rt. ear lobule lacerated & torn with flap missing at outer edge with clotted blood caused by blunt object.5. two red bruise patches in lt. zygomatic arch area 2 cm & 1 cm diameter caused by blunt object.6. verticle l.w. in occipital region 7 cm x 3cm x bone deep with clotted blood caused by blunt object.in the opinion of dr. b.m. upadhyaya (pw. 19) the cause of death was head injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.6. indisputably the appellant on the day of incident was residing in the house of deceased as tenant. khurshid ahmed (pw. 16) had gone to police station hathras junction in search of past record of the appellant. on the basis of documents ex. p. 25 to ex. p. 36, khurshid ahmed deposed that the appellant's original name was jagveer singh. he was born in village majhola ps hathras junction and studied upto class 10th. in the police station hathras junction a case no. 230/92 under section 324, 323 and 504 ipc was registered and charge sheet was filed. police station hari parvat agra arrested the appellant in case no. 142/94 under section 394 ipc and 25 arms act and charge sheet was filed against him on april 13, 1994 in the court. evidently the appellant got absconded from his native place and came to jaipur with fictitious name ajay kumar and became tenant of suraj devi, bagh singh (pw. 17), investigating officer, in his deposition stated that after the arrest of the accused on the basis of his disclosure statement the iron moosali (stained with human blood), used for commission of offence, got recovered vide ex. p. 16, which was hidden under the stones in a side of the crossing of jat ke kue ka rasta. he also got recovered the clothes stained with blood vide recovery memo ex. p. 19 on the basis of disclosure statement of appellant ex. p. 38.7. the investigating officer also deposed that on the basis of disclosure statement of the appellant the ornaments one ring, one broken top and one intact top belonging to the deceased were recovered vide ex. p. 20 from himmat jain (pw. 11) owner of shop nakoda jewellers, 180 indra market kola. one ear of right side of the deceased was cut as was found by dr. bal mukund upadhyay, which connected the recovery of broken top. the ornaments were identified in the presence of magistrate by the family members of the deceased.8. witness himmat jain (pw. 11) in his deposition stated that the appellant came to his shop and purchased silver anklet. on the next occasion he came to sell rolax bangles. when the witness said that the bangle was not original the appellant brought golden ring (with nagina) and tops (one top was broken), which were purchased by the witness for rs. 2,800/-. after lew days the police brought the appellant, the witness handed over the ornaments to the police which were sealed and kept by the police.9. the last circumstance against the accused is that he raised false plea of alibi, which itself provides an additional link to the chain of circumstances. the incriminating circumstances established by the prosecution, if taken together, they form a complete chain leading to an inference that it was only the accused who committed the crime and nobody else.10. for these reasons, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial judge under sections 449, 394 and 302 ipc are maintained.