R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment dated 14.11.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Ajmer both the appellant, Harlal and the State of Rajasthan have filed two different appeals before this court. While Harlal has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1257/2006, the State of Rajasthan has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1606/2007. Since both these appeals arise from the same impugned judgment, they are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) BY the said judgment, the learned Judge had convicted Harlal for offence under Section 302 IPC, but had acquitted him for offence under Section 201/34 IPC. The learned Judge had further acquitted the co -accused, Smt. Manna @ Mannudi, for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. By an order of even date, for offence under Section 302 IPC the learned Judge had sentenced Harlal to life imprisonment, had imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, and directed to further undergo six months of simple imprisonment in default thereof. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 28.7.2005, at 6:15 AM, the Police Station, Gegal received a telephonic information that someone had killed Sohan Singh and his dead body is lying in the village. Having given this information, the person disconnected the phone. Upon this information, the SHO, Rajveer Singh (P.W.10), proceeded to the village. At the village, Pratap Singh Rawat (P.W.1) submitted a written report (Ex. P.1). When translated into English, the written report reads as under: "To, The SHO,Police Station Gegal,District Ajmer. Sub.: For initiating legal proceedings. Sir, It is humbly submitted that today, on 28.7.2005, I was at my house. Around 5:30 AM I heard the sounds of a woman crying in the house of Sohan Singh. I went to the house of Sohan Singh. I found Sohan Singh's wife crying. Sohan Singh was lying on a Charpoi in the courtyard. On the right side of his face, near his ear, there was an injury with a sharp edged weapon. There was blood lying around the Charpoi. Someone had killed Sohan Singh with a sharp edged weapon while he was sleeping. The moment I came to know, I called the police station. I am submitting this report so that legal action can be taken. Sd/ -"
(3.) ON the basis of this written report (Ex. P.1), the police chalked out a formal FIR (Ex. P.25), namely FIR No. 92/05, for offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC and initiated the investigation. After completing the investigation, the police had submitted a charge -sheet against both Harlal, the brother of the deceased, and Manna @ Mannudi, the wife of the deceased, for offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, wherefrom it was transferred to the learned Judge. The learned Judge framed the charges for offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. Both Harlal and Manna @ Mannudi, pleaded innocence, and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, and submitted thirty -seven documents. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Harlal explained the presence of blood on his clothes. According to him, while he was taking care of the body of his brother, Sohan Singh, the blood was soaked by his clothes. In turn, the defence examined Budha Singh (D.W.1), the father of both the deceased, Sohan Singh, and the appellant, Harlal; it submitted a single document. After completion of the trial, the learned Judge convicted the appellant, Harlal, as mentioned above, and acquitted Harlal of charges under Section 201/34 IPC and acquitted Manna @ Mannudi for offences under Sections 302 and 201/34IPC. Hence, aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, Harlal has filed an appeal; aggrieved by the acquittal of Harlal for offence under Section 201/34 IPC, and by the total acquittal of Manna @ Mannudi, the State has come before this court.;