Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 249 (RAJ)

Rajesh Mali @ Rajesh Pandey v. State of Rajasthan

2005-01-28

DALIP SINGH, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2005
Judgment Dalip Singh, J.-This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the Judgment passed by the Special Judge (Sati Nivaran)-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 3/1999 dated 20.01.2001 whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that on 110.1998 a report Ex. P-12 was filed by PW. 8 Mohd. Shokat Khan to the effect that on 110.1998 at about 4:35 pm an autorickshaw driver had brought a couple to their hotel for renting a room in their hotel. It was stated in the report that the couple was given room No. 104. They gave their names as Ranjeet Singh aged 27 years and Keku Rathore aged 24 years. It was further stated that the address which was given was of Digvijay Singh Cement Ltd., Jamnagar, Gujarat. It was stated in the report that entry was made by said Ranjeet Singh in his own hand. In the report it has been further stated that at about 8:45 pm, the Waiter of the hotel was asked to take the order for dinner from the guests staying in the hotel. The Waiter PW. 1 Pema Ram came back and informed that in room No. 104, the light and the television were on but nobody was responding from the room. Thereafter, at the direction of PW. 8 Mohd. Shokat Khan, the main switch outside the room was switched off but even thereafter nobody responded from the room. The door of the room was forced open and it was seen that the bed was lying empty and in the bath room a lady was lying in dead a state. Thereafter, the witness called his elder brother and they informed the police on telephone. Upon the said report, police registered the First Information Report No. 133/1998 Exhibit P-67 at Police Station Sanjay Circle, Jaipur City, Jaipur and started investigation. 3. During the course of investigation, police recorded the statements of various witnesses and collected various documents and articles. The accused appellant was arrested on 011.1998 and on the basis of the information given by him, the police recovered certain articles. 3. During the course of investigation, police recorded the statements of various witnesses and collected various documents and articles. The accused appellant was arrested on 011.1998 and on the basis of the information given by him, the police recovered certain articles. On completion of the investigation, police filed challan against the accused appellant. The accused appellant was charged for the offence under Section 302, IPC and the accused appellant pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined 31 witnesses and produced 72 documents. The learned trial Court after completion of the trial by the impugned Judgment dated 20.01.2001 found that accused appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life as stated above. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused appellant preferred this appeal. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and have also perused the record of the case. 6. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the present one is a case of no evidence against the accused appellant and the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is ample evidence on the record and the learned trial Court for the just and cogent reasons passed the Judgment of conviction against the accused appellant. 7. In the aforesaid case there is firstly, the circumstance of the deceased Smt. Kaushlya wife of the accused appellant Rajesh having been last seen alive in the company of the accused appellant on 110.1998 at about 5:45 pm and, thereafter, the deceased was not seen alive by any person and was found lying dead in the bathroom of room No. 104 of Hotel Bombay in Jaipur where the deceased and the accused appellant had checked in on 110.1998. Prior to that there is evidence that accused appellant who was working at Beawer had left the factory premises at about 9:00 or 9:30 am and did not return to the said premises on 110.1998. This fact has been proved by the testimony of PW. 5 Rajesh Sharma PW. 7 Harish Chandra Trivedi, PW. 21 Mohan Lal. PW. 5 Rajesh Sharma has stated that in the morning at about 9-9:30 am on 110.1998, the accused appellant left the factory premises and did not return. This fact has been proved by the testimony of PW. 5 Rajesh Sharma PW. 7 Harish Chandra Trivedi, PW. 21 Mohan Lal. PW. 5 Rajesh Sharma has stated that in the morning at about 9-9:30 am on 110.1998, the accused appellant left the factory premises and did not return. He has further stated that though the accused appellants attendance was marked absent for the balance half of the day. He allegedly procured a false certificate regarding his presence at the factory on 110.1998 from the site Labour Engineer Hukam Chand Gupta. The accused submitted a photocopy of the aforesaid certificate but did not produce the original and did not lead any evidence to prove the said certificate. 8. The next set of evidence on the record is that of PW. 9 Narayan Lal, father of the deceased, PW. 10 Smt. Rami, mother of the deceased and PW. 11 Parsram brother of the deceased. These three witnesses have stated that on 110.1998, the accused appellant had come and wanted to take his wife Smt. Kaushlya who had been living with her father for sometime. It has come in the evidence of PW. 9 Narayan Lal, father of the deceased that his daughter had been married to the accused appellant for about 10-12 years and prior to 110.1998 for about one and one and half years, the deceased had started going to her in-laws house as per customs. On 110.1998 the deceased was at her fathers home when the accused came saying that he would come and take Smt. Kaushlya, his wife in the morning. He has also stated that the accused was not fond of his wife and illtreated her but on being assured by the accused appellant that he would treat Kaushlya properly, he agreed to send his daughter with him and consequently, in the morning at about 10 O Clock, he sent Kaushlya with her husband and along with his son PW. 11 Parsram. He has further stated that the accused appellant sent Parsram back from the bus-stand. The witnesses has further stated that on 20.10.1998 when he went to the house of accused-appellant for exchanging Diwali greetings, the parents of the accused-appellant told him that the accused had come alone and Kaushlya had not come with him and the accused-appellant after having come home had left the house. The witnesses has further stated that on 20.10.1998 when he went to the house of accused-appellant for exchanging Diwali greetings, the parents of the accused-appellant told him that the accused had come alone and Kaushlya had not come with him and the accused-appellant after having come home had left the house. When the witness did not get any satisfactory information regarding his daughter deceased Kaushlya, he filed a criminal complaint in the Court on 210.1998. He further stated that on 011.1998, police came to him with a photograph and clothes which he recognised as being those of his daughter. Said photograph of the deceased Kaushlya in Exhibit P-14 on the record. The testimony of this witness has been corroborated by PW-10 Smt. Rami mother of the deceased and PW. 11 Parsram, brother of the deceased. 9. Another important piece of evidence on the record is Exhibit P-48, the complaint filed by Gularam, father of the accused-appellant in the Court of Magistrate against Narayan Lal and Smt. Rami, wife of Narayan Lal and others for the alleged offence under Sections 20 and 406, CrPC. In the said complaint Gularam, father of the accused-appellant, has stated that his son Rajesh is married to the daughter of PW. 9 Narayan Lal viz. Kaushlya, the deceased. In para 4 of the said complaint it has been stated that PW. 9 Narayan Lal came to the house of Gula Ram and said that Raju (Rajesh, the accused) S/o Gula Ram had come to his house and taken his daughter (Smt. Kaushlya) on 110.1998. From the aforesaid narration of the complaint which was filed by the father of the accused, the fact that deceased Kaushlya was taken by the accused-appellant from the house of her father on 110.1998 stands fully proved along with the evidence of PW. 9, PW. 10 and PW. 11. That apart, there is also an evidence of PW. 25 Chetan Prakash who has stated that on 110.1998 in the morning at about 10 O Clock, the accused-appellant took the deceased Smt. Kaushlya and left in a jeep towards Beawar. Likewise PW. 26 Babulal corroborates the testimony of PW. 25 Chetan Prakash where he states that on 110.1998, at about 10-10:30 am the accused took the deceased Smt. Kaushlya in a jeep towards Beawar. This set of evidence of PW. 9, PW. 10, PW. 11, PW. 25 and PW. Likewise PW. 26 Babulal corroborates the testimony of PW. 25 Chetan Prakash where he states that on 110.1998, at about 10-10:30 am the accused took the deceased Smt. Kaushlya in a jeep towards Beawar. This set of evidence of PW. 9, PW. 10, PW. 11, PW. 25 and PW. 26 read with the narration in para 4 of the Exhibit P-48 the complaint filed by the father of the accused-appellant, proves that on 110.1998, the accused-appellant took the deceased from her fathers house and left for Beawar at about 10-10:30 in the morning and the deceased was seen by these witnesses on 110.1998 alive for the last time. 10. The next set of evidence is that of the accused along with the deceased having arrived at Jaipur on 110.1998 in the evening and checked in the Hotel Bombay. This set of evidence is of PW. 1 Pema Ram who was working as waiter at Hotel Bombay in Jaipur where the accused-appellant came and stayed in room No. 104 along with the deceased. He left the accused and the deceased in the room No. 104. He again went at about 8:45 pm to the room No. 104 and other rooms to take the order of dinner at the instance of the Manager. He is also a witness who entered the room and found the room empty and found the dead body of the deceased Smt. Kaushlya, wife of the accused-appellant in the bathroom and informed the Manager of the hotel. He has also identified the accused-appellant as a person who came and stayed in the hotel in room No. 104 on the said date along with the deceased and who had entered his name in the register as Ranjeet Singh and of his wife as Smt. Keku Rathore. This witness was thoroughly cross examined but his testimony could not be shaken. The other witness is PW. 2 Saleem who is autoricksaw driver. He has stated that he took a couple at Hotel Bombay on 4-4:30 in the evening from Sindhi Camp Bus Stand and the person whom he left at hotel was none other than the accused appellant whom he identified in the Court as well as whom he had earlier identified during the test identification parade. The next witness is PW. 8 Mohd. Shokat Khan who is the owner of the hotel Bombay at Jaipur. The next witness is PW. 8 Mohd. Shokat Khan who is the owner of the hotel Bombay at Jaipur. He has stated that accused present in the Court is the person who came to his hotel on 110.1998 along with a lady whose name was entered as Keku Rathore and who stayed in the room No.104. He has further stated that he maintained a register of all the guests who come and stayed in his hotel. He further stated that the accused present in the Court made the entry of his own hand and gave his name as Ranjeet Singh. He has also stated that after having checked in, after a gap of one and half hours, he saw the accused along going out of the hotel. He inquired from the accused as to where he was going on which the accused replied that he is coming shortly. However, at about 8-8:30 PM when he sent PW. 1 Pema Ram to take the orders of dinner from the guests staying in the hotel, upon reaching the room No. 104, he found that the voice of television was though coming from inside and the fan and lights were on, yet there was no response from the room. On being so reported by PW. 1 Pema Ram, when he along with PW. 1 Pema Ram looked inside, they found that there was nobody present in the room and the tap in the bathroom was on, when they entered the bathroom to close the tap, they found the dead body of the deceased lying there which was almost in the naked state and blood was flowing from the wounds and a cloth was stuffed in the mouth of the dead body. Thereafter, he informed the police and the report Exhibit P-12 was lodged by him. 11. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove that accused-appellant came to the house of his in-laws where the deceased Smt. Kaushlya, wife of the accused-appellant was staying with her parents and took the deceased from the house of her father in the morning of 110.1998. The deceased reached the bus-stand where she was brought by her parents and brother. Thus as per PW. 25 and PW. 26, the accused accompanied her in a jeep and left for Beawer. The deceased reached the bus-stand where she was brought by her parents and brother. Thus as per PW. 25 and PW. 26, the accused accompanied her in a jeep and left for Beawer. The accused-appellant thereafter reached Jaipur from Beawar check in the hotel Bombay at Jaipur where he was brought by the autoricksaw driver PW. 2 Saleem . The accused appellant entered his name fictitiously as Ranjeet Singh upto that point of time the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused-appellant on 110.1998 at about 4:35 and thereafter they were taken to their room (room No. 104) of the Hotel Bombay at Jaipur by PW. 1 Pema Ram, the waiter of the hotel. The deceased was not seen alive thereafter and was found lying dead at about 8:30 - 8:45 pm on 110.1998 with the accused-appellant missing from the room. 12. Alongwith aforesaid evidence, there is an evidence of test identification parade Exhibit P-22, Exhibit P-23 and Exhibit P.24 conducted by the Magistrate PW. 15 Mahawir Swami in which the accused appellant was correctly identified. The accused appellant was also correctly identified in the Court by the witnesses as the person who had been brought by the autoricksaw driver PW. 2 Saleem to Hotel Bombay and by PW. 1 Pema Ram and PW. 8 Mohd. Shokat Khan as the person who had made the enteries giving his name as Ranjeet Singh and that of his wife as Keku Rathore (the deceased) as the person who had come to stay at Hotel on 110.1998 as guest in the room No. 104 where the body of the deceased was found by the staff of the Hotel. The police seized Article-1A, the hotel register. A photocopy of the concerned entry in the said register is available on the record. The writing in the said register with regard to the guest Ranjeet aged 27 years and Keku Rathore aged 24 years and the connected enteries were examined by the forensic export to whom the specimen of the writings S-1 to S-63 made by the guest Rajesh @ Rajesh Mali, accused appellant, and the specimens of the writings of the accused in the register of M/s. Raj Cement on page 18 of the said register marked as A-1 to A-6 and that of the signatures in the visitors register of Bombay Hotel room Q-1 to Q-3 had also been sent. As per the result of the examination, the writings Q-1` to Q-3 and S-1 to S-63 were found to have been written by one and same person. In this view of the matter , from the aforesaid set of evidence, it is amply proved that the enteries in the visitors register of Hotel Bombay were made by the accused appellant. As such it is proved from the identification of the accused appellant and the entries in the register that the accused appellant along with the deceased came and stayed in the room No. 104 at Hotel Bombay, Jaipur where the body of the deceased Smt. Kaushlya, wife of the accused appellant was found in a murdered state. 13. During the course of investigation, the police also recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant the weapon of offence, the knife, his blood stained clothes as well as photographs of the deceased and the accused. All these factors have been considered by the learned trial Court in detail in the Judgment under appeal and the learned trial Court, in our opinion, has rightly come to the conclusion that the accused appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 302, IPC for having committed the murder of his wife Smt. Kaushlya whom he brought from her parents house after planning his alibi by going to his place of work then leaving the factory, taking a false certificate showing his presence at the factory plant for the full day and then coming to Jaipur with his wife and checking into the Hotel Bombay under ficticious names and after murdering his wife leaving the room without informing anyone. 14. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the Judgment passed by the learned trial Court, consequently this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The accused appellant is in jail and could serve out the remaining part of the sentence.