K. C. SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr. P. C. arises out of the judgment and order dated 3. 8. 99 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa, whereby he convicted the accused appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default thereof, each to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on the first count, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default thereof, each to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment on the second count.
(2.) AS per the prosecution case, PW5 complainant Munshi Singh, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bapi lodged a written report, Ex. P. 6 on 21. 5. 97 at Police Station Shainthal to the effect that yesterday at about 11 AM, Mst. Rambeti W/o Patwari Banjara came to him and informed that her husband was missing since last saturday. She informed that appellant Harbansh Banjara had taken away her husband. On enquiry, having found seriousness of the matter, called Indraraj, younger brother of Patwari, who on enquiry admitted in the presence of villagers that he has murdered Patwari by striking stones. He further disclosed that he sacked the dead body in a bag and threw it into the well of Sangi Meena. The complainant has disclosed the names of some of the villagers in the report, before whom accused Indraraj confessed. On the above report, police registered a case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC vide FIR, Ex. P. 7 and proceeded with the investigation. In the course of investigation, the police party under the leadership of PW17 Narain Singh Ratnu, Station House Officer proceeded to the well of Sangi Meena and took out the dead body of deceased Patwari from the said well and prepared the site plan, Ex. P10 and Ex. P3 and the inquest report, Ex. P. 1. The cloths of the deceased were seized vide memo Ex. P. 3. The blood stained soil and controlled soil was seized vide memos Ex. P. 8 and P9, respectively. The police then got conducted autopsy on the dead body and collected post mortem report, Ex. P. 24. The police arrested accused Indraraj and Harbansh vide memos Ex. P. 27 and 28, respectively. Accused Indraraj furnished information Ex. P. 29 as regards the place where he committed murder and the information Ex. P. 30 as regards recovery of knife (Chhuri ). Likewise, accused Harbansh furnished information Ex. P. 31 as regards recovery of stone which he used in commission of offence. Pursuant to the information Ex. P. 30 of accused Indraraj, police recovered a knife (Chhuri) wide memo Ex. P4 and prepared site plan, Ex. P. 5 of the place of recovery. Pursuant to the information Ex. P. 31, the police recovered pieces of stones vide memo Ex. P. 23. After completion of usual investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused appellants in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Dausa. The learned Magistrate having found the offence exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge, Dausa. The case came to be tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa. The learned trial court on the basis evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before it and after hearing counsel for the parties, framed charges against the accused appellants under Sections 302. 302/34 and 201 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and got exhibited number of documents. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. The accused did not adduce any ocular evidence, but got exhibited statements of 3 witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr. P. C.
(3.) AT the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court found the charges duly established against the accused appellant and according convicted and sentenced them in the manner indicated hereinabove. Hence this appeal against the conviction and sentence. We have heard learned counsel for the accused appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence and material on record. The prosecution case solely hinges on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness of the incident. The circumstances put forward by the prosecution and relied upon by the learned trial court so as to base connection of the accused appellants may be stated below: 1. Accused appellants having been last seen in the company of deceased, and 2. Extra judicial confession of the accused appellant. ;