- (1.) The above mentioned two appeals are being decided by this common judgment and order as both arise out of the same judgment and order dated 6-7-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Udaipur as the accused appellant Dalpat, has sent the appeal from Jail also being appeal No. 760/2002 though he has filed representative appeal No. 665/ 2002. FACTS OF APPEAL NO. 665/2002
(2.) The accused appellants Dalpat Singh and Ratan Singh have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 6-7-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 150/2001 by which he convicted the accused appellants as under : JUDGEMENT_749_CRLJ_2005Html1.htm
(3.) It arises in the following circumstances : (i) That on 12-9-2001 P.W. 2 Pritam Singh lodged a written report (Ex. P/4) with the police Station Sayra Dist., Udaipur stating that his brother P.W. 10 Jaswant Singh's wife Smt. Pawan Kunwar (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was missing since 12-9-2001 as on that date in the morning at about 7'O clock, she had gone to Kamba for tying the buffalo, but she had not returned. On this report a FIR about missing person was registered. (ii) Further case of the prosecution is that on the next day i.e. on 13-9-2002, P.W. 2 Pritam Singh lodged another report Ex. P/5 with the Police Station Sayra inter alia stating that on 12-9-2001, he had already lodged a missing report (Ex. P/4) about the deceased who had gone as guest to the house of her Bhua Smt. Gulab Kanwar P.W. 6 at village Kamba from where she was missing. It was further stated in the report (Ex. P/5) that on 13-9-2001, when search of the deceased was being going on, the dead body of the deceased was found lying under a tree in the field of Dalpat Singh (P.W. 3) at village Kamba. It was further stated In the report (Ex. P/5) that on the body of the deceased there were signs of abrasions present on her neck, by which it appeared that the deceased was, murdered by unknown persons by pressing her neck. (iii) On this report (Ex. P/5), police chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/6 and started investigation. The investigation was got conducted by P.W. 16 Chandmal Regar and during the course of investigation, Panchnama of dead body of the deceased was got prepared and the same is Ex. P/1. Site plan was also prepared by the police and the same is Ex. P/2 and photographs of the dead body were taken and the same are Ex. P/10 to Ex. P/l5. The accused appellant Ratan Singh was got arrested through Fard Ex. P/36 on 17-9-2001 by P.W. 16 Chand Mal Regar and similarly accused appellant Dalpat Singh was got arrested through Fard Ex. P/37 on 17-9-2001 by P.W. 16 Chand Mal Regar. (iv) The post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted by P.W. 11 Dr. Sudha Gandhi and P.W. 13 Dr. Rahul Jain and the post-mortem report of the deceased is Ex. P/27 where cause of death of the deceased was opined to be asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation. (v) After arrest, the accused appellant Ratan Singh gave Information Ex. P/42 on 20-9-2001 to P.W. 16 Chand Mal Regar that he could get recovered one paijeb of silver and in pursuance of that information, P.W. 16 Chand Mal Regar got recovered one Paijeb in presence of witnesses Jawan Singh and Jiwan Singh (P.W. 9} through Fard Ex. P/ 23. Similarly, the accused appellant Dalpat Singh gave information Ex. P/43 on 20-9-2001 to P.W. 16 Chand Mal Regar that he could get recovered one paijeb of silver and in pursuance of that information Ex. P/43, P.W. 16 Chand Mal Regar got recovered one paijeb in presence of witnesses Jawan Singh and Jiwan Singh (P.W. 9) through fard Ex. P/25. (vi) Further case of the prosecution is that both paijebs were got identified by P.W. 10 Jaswant Singh, husband of the deceased before Magistrate P.W. 15 Manish Agrawal and identification memos are Ex: P/33 and P/34 respectively. (vii) Further case of the prosecution is that before the Incident, the accused appellants and the deceased were seen together by witness P.W. 5 Gajiya Gameti and thus, after usual investigation, challan was filed against the accused appellants for offence under Sections 302 and 379, IPC. (viii) That the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 31-1-2002 framed charge against the accused appellants for offences under Sections 302/34 and 379/ 34, IPC. (x) During trial statements of 16 witnesses were recorded on behalf of the prosecution and thereafter statements of accused appellants under Section313, Cr. P.C. were recorded, but no witness was examined in defence. (xii) At the conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge through judgment and order dated 6-7-2002 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as stated above after placing reliance on two circumstances : (i) Evidence of Last seen which he found in the statement of P.W. 5 Gajiya Gameti. (ii) Recovery of silver paijeb belonging to the deceased from each of the accused appellants. (xii) After being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6-7-2002 the accused appellants have preferred the present appeal.;