SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE appellants were the accused on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar bearing Sessions Case No. 44/93. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found them guilty under Sections 302 and 201, IPC and convicted and sentenced them under each section to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/ - in default to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Assailing the said judgment the appellants have preferred the instant appeals.
(2.) IN nut shell the prosecution case is that informant Chhigan Lal (PW -5) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 7) on 7.8.1993 at 1.45 p.m. to he SHO Police Station, Raghunathgarh to the effect that at around 10.00 a.m. on the said day when Bhagwana Ram Balai was ploughing his field the found something concealed underneath the fresh soil near the public well adjacent to his field. He then gathered the villagers and when soil was removed in the presence of informant, Bherji, Durga Prasad, Madan Lal and other villagers a dead body was found buried underneath the soil. The Police Station, Ragunathgarh registered FIR No. 96/93 (Ex. P. 8) under Sections 302 and 201, IPC and the investigation commenced. Site plan Ex. P. 9 was drawn. Inquest report Ex. P. 6 was prepared. Autopsy on the dead body which was identified as of Narpat Singh, was conducted vide Ex. P. 23. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161, CrPC were recorded. The appellants were arrested. At the instance of appellant Surendra Kumar blood stained clothes and knife were recovered, whereas on the basis of disclosure statement of appellant Umrao Singh clothes, handkerchief, iron Kassi, empty bottle of liquor, Chapals, Ring, bag, watch, keys, calculator, pass book of deceased Narpat Singh, diary, spectacles, Bhagwadgita, Four Dot Pencils and cash in the sum of Rs. 28,734/ - were recovered. On conclusion of the investigation chargesheet was laid. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sikar. Charges under Sections 302 and 201, IPC were framed against the appellants who denied the charges and claimed trial. As many as 23 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. In the explanation under Section 313, CrPC the appellants pleaded innocence and stated that they were falsely implicated in the case. Initially the police detained one Suresh Ginodiya who used to tease the girls in the College, and on being implored by deceased Narpat Singh not to do so, Suresh had threatened Narpat Singh to kill. But Suresh Ginodiya was left and in his place the appellants were arrested. The appellants examined three witnesses in defence. On hearing final submissions the learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated hereinabove.
(3.) THE prosecution case depends on circumstantial evidence which broadly speaking is two fold. In the first category comes the testimony of Chitrainjan Singh (PW -16), Rajendra Kumar (PW -9) Purushottam (PW -13), Ram Singh (PW -20) and Mool Singh (PW -21) who had last seen the deceased and the appellants together and the evidence of second category comprises the disclosure statements of the appellants and the recovery memos of blood stained clothes, knife, iron Kassi (spade), empty bottle of liquor, Chapals, keys, bag, watch, calculator, Ring, Pass book, Bhagwadgita, spectacles and cash in the sum of Rs. 28,734/ -. One more connecting evidence is the report of FSL Ex. P. 33.;