S.P.PATHAK, J. - (1.) THIS D.B. Criminal appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3rd January, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Alwar in Sessions Case No.32/2002 (41/2002) whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Under section 302 IPC Imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Under section 4/25 of the Arms Act two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) BOTH the above sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.1.2002, Kailash Chand Soni (PW-1) submitted a written report at the spot to Sardar Singh (PW-11), SHO police station Kotwali, investigating officer of the case. In the above written report it was, inter-alia, stated that his younger brother's son Rajendra Kumar Soni was living in Halwai pada in front of Jain Hospital and was doing tailoring business from his house. It is further stated that between 10.30 and 11.00 a.m., one Hari Ram Soni, a relative of the complainant, informed him that Rajendra Soni has been murdered. It is also stated that on hearing telephonic message, he immediately reached at the house of the deceased and found the police there. It is also stated that the deceased's wife and children were not in the house as they had gone out to some relatives. On making inquiry in relation to the incident from the neighbourers and other persons, it was found that Rajendra Soni, the deceased, was alone at the house. It was also revealed that the deceased was in the company of Shanu, Anil and Darshan and after some time, Shanu and Anil left the place of incident and the accused Darshan alone remained there and he had all doubts that the accused Darshan Singh has committed murder of deceased Rajendra Soni because 1-1/2 months prior to the incident there was some quarrel of the deceased with the accused as a result of which deceased sustained head injury. The above report Ex.P-1 was handed over to Ummed Singh, constable of the police station who took the same to the police station and there a case was registered and a formal FIR (Ex.P-23) was chalked out. During the course of investigation, the accused was arrested on the very same day vide memo Ex.P-24. On 19.1.2002 at 10.40 a.m. accused made a disclosure statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act to the effect that he has kept the sword in the court-yard of his house which can be recovered at his instance. In pursuance of his information on the very same day i.e. on 19.1.2002 the sword was recovered vide memo Ex.P-11 in presence of Ram Kishore (PW-7). The accused-appellant further gave a disclosure statement in relation to a pair of cotton shoes and a cotton jersy. This information was recorded in memo Ex.P-26 at 10.10 am on 19.1.2002. In pursuance of above disclosure statement, recovery was effected at 11.40 a.m. on 19.1.2002. In the disclosure statement, it was stated that the shoes and jersy after washing have been kept in a room of the house and he was prepared to get the same recovered. In pursuance of the information given, recovery was effected vide memo Ex.P-12. The recovered articles were sealed. It may be stated here that on the sword as well as on the sole of the cotton shoes and on the jersy, blood was seen. On sending the seized articles for chemical examination to the FSL, it was disclosed that it was human blood but no blood group could be detected. The site was inspected and site plan Ex.P-2 was prepared. The autopsy on the dead-body of deceased Rajendra Soni was performed by Dr. Amar Singh Rathore (PW-6). The post-mortem report is Ex.P-10. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused-appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC read with section 4/25 of the Arms Act. After hearing both sides, learned trial court framed charge under section 302 IPC read with section 4/25 of the Arms Act on 20.4.2002 to which the accused denied and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and tendered several documents in documentary evidence.
(3.) AFTER close of the prosecution evidence the explanation from the accused was sought under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused in the explanation stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case and he was not even available at the spot on the day of incident. No evidence in defence was produced. The trial court after hearing final submissions, convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated here-in-above. Hence, the present appeal has been filed. We have heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant as well as learned public prosecutor for the State and carefully scanned the evidence and material available on record. In the present matter, following points require consideration: (i) Whether the death of the deceased was natural or homicidal? (ii) Whether circumstantial evidence relied upon by the trial court in convicting the accused completes the chain of circumstance so as to draw the only conclusion that it was the accused who murdered deceased Rajendra? (iii) Whether the judgment and order passed by the trial court convicting the accused under section 302 IPC read with section 4/25 of the Arms Act requires to be maintained? Now, we proceed to decide the points framed by us. POINT NO.(i): Dr. Amar Singh Rathore (PW-6) while posted as Medical Jurist in General Hospital, Alwar on 17.1.2002 conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Rajendra Soni on the request of ASI, Police Station Kotwali, Alwar. In his statement he has stated that the death of deceased Rajendra Soni took place within 24 hours of conducting his post-mortem. He has also stated that he found one incised wound, 15x6 cm- anterior neck and both sides of neck, transversely placed with red clotted blood more on right side 9 cm and 6 cm on left side, clear cut, thyroid cartledge and laryx cut, oesophagi clear cut, muscle of both side neck cut- both common carotid arteries of right side- veins of right side cut with hematoma- all nerves cut- all vessels of neck cut with hematoma, both side vessels with arteries cut with hematoma. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury found on the person of the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has also stated that arteries and veins were cut which resulted in hemorrhage. ;