KANTA BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 19 -4 -1977 by which appellant Ved Prakash was convicted for the offence under Section 379, of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25, Arms Act and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/ -, in default to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment on the first count and two years rigorous imprisonment and a line of Rs. 400/ -, in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment on the second count. By the same judgment, appellant Prithvi @ Purshtam was held guilty for the offence under Section 411, of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/ in default to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as under: Dayal Singh was the younger brother of P.W. 5 Jangir Singh. These two brothers were living separate for about 15 years. Three years prior to the alleged murder of Dayal Singh in the year 1974, he came to Mohakamwala and lived with Shri Pritam Singh (P.W. 4) on the death of the father of Jangir Singh and Dayal Singh information was sent to the latter but he did not go to his house. Jangir Singh therefore went to Pritam Singh and enquired about his brother Dayal Singh. Pritam Singh informed him that Jangir Singh had gone with Ved Prakash son of Manudev about three months back and was living with him at Caak -2KK. Jangir Singh went to Chak -2KK and enquired about Dayal Singh. Milava Ram (PW 1) and Hernek Singh (PW 2) asked to Ved Prakash about Dayal Singh and wee told that Dayal Singh had left the village two months back and did not return. Dayal Singh had one double barrel gun, one she -camel, one camel cart and certain other articles, utensils etc. while he was living at Chak 2 -KK. Ved Prakash is said to have held that he had disposed of the cart and the she -camel and placed the gun at village Mohakam wala. The list of the Articles Ex. P.1 was prepared and the articles were entrusted to Milava Ram on 16 -10 -74 On 19 -10 -74 Jangir Singh went to police station Gamodiwali and lodged the report Ex. D -3 about the missing of his brother Dayal Singh. Thereafter, on 25 -10 -74 Jangir Singh again went to the police station and lodged the report against the Ved Prakash and Prithvi appellant and their father Munidev to the effect that they had mis -appropriated the property belonging to his brother who was not traceable. Case under Sections 467, 380, 379 and 366. Indian Penal Code was registered against the two appellants and their father Manu Dev During the course of investigation, a skeleton was recovered from out side the house of Manudev and Section 302, I.P.C. was added. The cart was recovered from Lachman Mistri. Information was also said to have been furnished by Ved Prakash for disposing of the she camel. Similarly, a watch said to be belonging to Dayal Singh was recovered in pursuance of the information furnished by Prithvi. The case against Manu Dev was dropped at the investigation stage. Challan against the two appellants was filed in the Court of Munsif& Judicial Magistrate, Karanpur, who committed the accused to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar.
(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial of the case and examined as many as 25 prosecution witnesses in all. The two appellants totally denied the allegations levelled against them in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. No defence witness was examined. The learned Judge did not placed reliance on the prosecution case that the appellants were in any way concerned with the murder of Dayal Singh. However, the prosecution version about Ved Prakash disposing of the she -camel and the cart belonging to Dayal Singh was believed and he was convicted and sentenced far the offence under Section 379, I.P.C. as stated earlier. The recovery of gun at his instance without any licence in his name was believed and he was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act also. The prosecution case about recovery of the watch belonging to Dayal Singh in pursuance of the information furnished by Prithvi appellant was believed and he was held guilty for the offence under Section 4(sic)1. I.P.C. end sentenced as stated earlier. I have heard Mr. B.K. Chauhan, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Dr. S. S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully examined the record of the case.;