K. C. SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS criminal appeal by accused Choturam arises out of the judgment and order dated 3. 2. 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahpura (Jaipur), by which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge having found the prosecution story as alleged true and charges having proved beyond doubt, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated below: Under Sec. 302 IPc Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 15 days rigorous imprisonment. Under Sec. 201 IPc Seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 5 days simple imprisonment. Under Sec. 377 IPc Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 15, days simple imprisonment.
(2.) THE present case solely rests on circumstantial evidence. As per the prosecution, PW 1 Ganga Charan Yadav lodged written report, Ex. P1 at Police Station Virat Nagar, Jaipur on 25. 7. 97 at 11. 30 AM with regard to an incident alleged to have taken place in the night intervening 23/24. 7. 97. As per the written report, the complainant informed the police that on 23. 7. 97 he had gone to village Kumar, leaving behind his children. On 24. 7. 97 when he returned at his Farm along with T. C. of his child, he found that his son Gajendra who was sleeping in the last night at the Farm was missing in the morning an on search he found the dead body of his son floating on the water in the well. We noticed that hands of his son were tied with some cloth. He suspected murder of his son by some body. Pursuant to the above written report, police registered a case for offence under Secs. 302 and 201 IPC vide FIR, Ex. P2 and rushed to the place of incident and prepared site plan, Ex. P. 3 with its description and the inquest report, Ex. P5. The investigation was taken up by PW 11 Richpal Singh, SHO of the concerned Police Station. Post mortem examination was also conducted by the board consisting of Drs. S. K. Sardana and PW 6 Dr. Ramesh Chand Sharma, the report of which is Ex. P. 8. The duration of death from the time of examination was found to be 36 to 48 hours. In the course of post mortem examination, the doctor noticed redish white discharge around anus and swelling around anus, mainly on right side. He also noticed white discharge present over posterior part of under-wear on inner aspect. The doctors took slides from the discharge present on the underwear and around anus and after sealing the same handed over the sealed packets to the Investigating Officer for examination. Accordingly, Section 377 IPC was also added. In the course of investigation, accused Chotu Ram was arrested and was subjected to medical examination by the board. As per the report Ex. P9 it was found that peripheral border of proxymal part of glans of penis was contused with radish-blue discoloration and errosions were also present over this part. On retraction of prepuce smegma was not found present. As per the report (Ex. P. 13) of the FSL, human semen was detected on the Underwear, Baniyan and pant of the appellant, marked Exhibits 5,6 and 8, contained in packet marked `c'. The nails of the appellant were also examined for the presence of blood. On chemical examination nails showed presence of traces of blood and its report is Ex. P. 14. As per FSL report, Ex. P. 15 human blood was found over Nicker of the victim and Baniyan and underwear of the accused appellant. On completion of investigation, police submitted a charge sheet against the accused appellant in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, who in turn, committed the case to the court of Sessions.
(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before it, framed charges against the accused appellant. THE appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Therefore, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court found the charges established against the appellant and accordingly convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated hereinabove. Hence this appeal against conviction and sentence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence and the material available on record. ;