- (1.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State at length.
(2.) THE appellant was tried along with the co-accused Malkhan son of Jagram for the offences under Sections 392/302/411, I.PC. The trial Court by the im­pugned judgment dated 25.8.1995 acquitted the co-accused Malkhan of the charges/The appellant has been convicted to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 392, I.PC. and to life imprisonment under Section 302, I.PC. the appellant was not granted bail during the trial. He has not even been granted bail during the pendency of this appeal. Thus, he has remained in jail since 1.1.1994 i.e. more than 14 years. The prosecution case, in brief, is that at about 5:00 P.M. on 1.1.1994, the complainant and the witnesses heard cries of Smt. Kundandevi wife of Veerpal that some persons had snatched her nose ornament called pungariya and were running away. Thereupon, the complainant and his brother Ramjeewan and Deendayal, Veerpal and Sunder came running to the spot. They saw two persons running away. Ramjeewan, the brother of the complainant caught hold of one of these two persons, who stabbed Ramjeewan. Thereafter, the complainant and Veerpal, caught hold of that assailant, who disclosed his name as the present appellant. The first information report further says that the second man was chased and caught by Deendayal and Sunder, who disclosed his name as Malkhan. Ramjeewan died on his way because of the stab wound. The complainant left the two apprehended accused in the custody of villagers and also left the dead body of his brother Ramjeewan and went to the police station to lodge the F.I.R., which was lodged on the same day at 9:15 P.M. According to the Investigating Officer, he reached the village of incident the same night, but for want of proper light neither inquest was prepared nor the accused were searched. Next morning on 2.1.1994, the Investigating Officer is alleged to have searched the appellant and recovered the nose ornament pungariya from him. Thereafter, on the pointing out of the appellant, the knife which was the weapon of assault was recovered by the police. Blood soaked and ordinary soil was collected from the spot by the Investigating Officer. Two site plans were prepared, one with regard to the place of recovery of knife and the other with regard to the place of incident. The body was sent for postmortem. According to the postmortem conducted at 11.50A.M. on 3.1.-1994, a single punctured wound was found on the chest of the deceased. There were no other ante mortem injuries. The stomach and small intestines were empty. The large intestine was full. Death was the result of the ante mortem injury. Both the accused were put on trial. The prosecution did not examine the lady, whose ornament was snatched or the two other ladies who, according to the F.I.R., were with her at the time of incident namely Smt. Kusum Devi and Smt. Dhanvati. The informant Chandrabhan was examined as P. W. 1. He denied the involvement of Malkhan saying that his name had not been mentioned in the first information report by the informant and the scribe of the first information report namely Ved Prakash had introduced the name of Malkhan on his own in the first information report and that part of the first information report was not read out to the informant, who had signed the same in ignorance. He also denied naming the said accused Malkhan in the statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Deendayal, who according to the first information report had apprehended the accused Malkhan was examined as P.W. 2. This witness stated that Malkhan was one of the per­sons who had rushed to the spot on hearing the cry and also stated that after the appellant had stabbed Ramjeewan, he was caught by Malkhan. This version is at variance from the F.I.R. version. He denied naming Malkhan as an accused in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C.
(3.) VEERPAL , who is alleged to have apprehended the appellant along with the complainant was examined as P.W. 3. Departing from the F.I.R. version, he has stated that after stabbing Ramjeewan, the appellant ran and he was apprehended by the said witness along with Deendayal, Sunder and one Chandra Bhan. He has stated that the appellant threw the knife in the bushes. He has also stated that the appellant was locked in a room in the village. He also says that the Investigating Officer came to the village on 2.1.1994. Thus, his evidence also is not only at variance with the F.I.R. version, but is also at variance with the evi­dence of the Investigating Officer P.W. 5, who had stated that he came to the village in the night of 1.1.1994. P.W. 3 was also stated that when the knife was recovered, it was blood stained and was sealed on the spot and a recovery memo was prepared. However, the knife was not sent for report of the alleged blood on the knife. This witness has also stated that the co-accused Malkhan was cutting jari and he also chased and caught the appellant. He has disowned his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. regarding Malkhan.;