MATHUR, J. - (1.) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bhilwara by judgment dated 12.11.2005 recorded conviction of the accused appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence to undergo life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000.00. In event of default in payment of fine the appellant was further required to undergo two months additional imprisonment. The question validity, correctness and propriety of the judgment aforesaid this appeal is preferred.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that on 9.9.2004 at about 01:10 PM Shri Nandlal (PW-1) submitted a written report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Baneda Camp Moosi with assertion that on 8.9.2004 at about 05:00 PM he left his house to avail labour work at Mandal Choraha leaving his mother Smt. Sugna and maternal uncle Shri Madanlal Luhar behind at home. A telephonic information was received by him at about 11:30 PM that Rampal Lakhara was quarreling with his mother. On reaching to home he came to know that at about 11:15 PM Rampal Lakhara gave a wooden stick blow on the head of Smt. Sugna, consequently she died. He further stated that Rampal was keeping vengeance with his mother as she objected his illicit relations with Smt. Shanti Luhar. Acting upon the information received a case was lodged and necessary investigation was initiated. An autopsy on the person of deceased Smt. Sugna was made, report of which is available on record as Ex.P/7. As per Ex.P/7 the cause of death was head injury i.e. cerebral brain stem laceration. After necessary investigation a police report as per provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the competent court charging Rampal and Shanti for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The court after hearing counsel for the parties framed charges against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code. The accused persons denied the charges and desired to have complete trial.
(3.) DURING the course of trial the prosecution supported its case with the aid of 22 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-22) and several documents prepared during the course of investigation. An opportunity was given to the accused persons to explain the adverse circumstances existing in prosecution evidence. The accused in general termed the entire evidence as false and concocted.;