KESHAV AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is made to a judgment dated 16.07.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, district Morena in Sessions Trial No.44/1995 by which the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Section 302 and Section 201 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and seven years' imprisonment respectively both to run concurrently.

(2.) It was the case of the prosecution, as is made out from the material available on record that on 15th August, 1994, one Kedar Singh, brother of Ram Singh made a report in Police Station Kailaras to the effect that his brother Ram Singh is working as a labourer in Kailaras, he had gone to work in the morning of 13th August and has not returned home till making of the report. It was further stated that on the previous date i.e. 14th August, 1994, there was a meeting of the Panchayat with regard to Ram Singh and in this meeting of the Panchayat, the accused persons have stated that on 13th August, 1994, in the morning, about 13 labourers had gone from the village to Kailaras, Ram Singh also went with these persons. In the evening all of them returned back to the village but Ram Singh had not returned, it was said by the accused persons that Ram Singh had consumed liquor and on the way back to village, Pachekha, they had to cross a river. It is said that when they reached a place near the river, some arguments took place and it is said that some of the accused slapped Ram Singh, left him there and came away. Based on the aforesaid facts as was narrated by Kedar Singh, the crime was registered and, thereafter, investigation held. Based on the investigation, certain seizures were also made on the basis of the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The case was put to trial and appellants have been convicted as indicated herein above.

(3.) Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants took us through the evidence and statement of witnesses available on record and pointed out that three circumstances were made out by the prosecution against the appellants, to hold them guilty of the offence. The First was seizure of certain blood stained cloths and knives from the accused persons based on their statements recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The second was the confession statement made by the accused persons in the Panchayat on 14th August, 1994 with regard to slapping of Ram Singh and the third is the evidence with regard to the accused being last seen along with deceased Ram Singh before his body was recovered.