R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.5.2006, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur, Ayub Khan, Shyam Singh and Savitra Devi have filed three different appeals before this court. While Ayub Khan has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No.660/2006, Shyam Singh has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No.566/2006, and Savitri Devi has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No.659/2006. Since these three appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment, they are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) The prosecution case is a short one. On 29.5.2005, Brajendra Singh (P.W.4), S.I., submitted a investigation report (Ex.P.8) under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to the SHO, Police Station Phagi. The said report, when translated into English, reads as under:- "From: Brajendra Singh, S.I., P.S. Phagi. To: The SHO, Police Station, Phagi. Sub: Report for taking legal action in investigation report on Mrig No.8/05 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. whereby offences under Sections 302, 201 IPC have been committed. Sir, It is submitted that on 26.5.2005, a telephonic information was received that a dead body was lying in a well at Bhojpura. Upon receiving this information, I Sub-Inspector, the SHO, Police Station Phagi reached the designated place where Smt. Savitri W/o. Shrinath, r/o. Plot No.279, Maharani Farm, Durgapura, the wife of a worker in Help in Suffering (HIS), Jaipur, submitted a written report. According to her report, she claimed that her husband, Shrinath, left her house on 11.5.2005 at 7:00 PM telling her that he is going for a party along with his friends. But ever since then, he did not turn. She filed a missing report at Police Station Shipra Path. According to her, she and staff of Help in Suffering in Jaipur searched for him and even published a notice in the newspaper. On 18.5.2005, an unknown person informed on the phone that between Phagi and Renwal a dead body is floating in a well. Therefore, she and the employees of Help in Suffering searched for the said well. They finally located the well this morning between Renwal and Phagi, which is located near the road. The dead body is wearing a T-shirt belonging to HIS. Therefore, she submitted a report. On the basis of the report, a Mrig FIR, namely Mrig No.8/05, was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and the investigation commenced. During the investigation, the place of the occurrence was visited where it was discovered that there was blood on the boundary wall of the well. There was blood even in the soil. Thus, the blood soaked soil was lifted. Near the well an empty beer bottle was also recovered. The Panchayatnama of the dead body was prepared. It was discovered that the wind pipe had been cut with a sharp edged weapon. The body had started decomposing. It was sent to the Medical Board for post-mortem. The body and the place of occurrence were photographed. The body was handed over to the legal heirs for being cremated. During the investigation, the statement of the complainant, Smt. Savitri, and of her other witnesses were recorded. The Post-Mortem Report was received from the medical officer. According to the Medical Board, the cause of death was the cutting of the wind pipe in the neck. Considering the place of the occurrence and the Post-Mortem Report, prima facie, a homicidal death was caused to Shrinath S/o. Ramkishan Maurya, aged about 42 years, r/o. Sighaigaur, P.S. Barajganj, District Gorakhpur (U.P.), presently r/o. Plot No.279, Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur. It was discovered that some unknown person had cut his neck and wind pipe with the use of sharp edged weapon. In order to eliminate the evidence, the body had been thrown into the well. Prima facie, offences under Section 302, 201 IPC has been committed. Therefore, this report is being submitted. Dated 29.5.2005
(3.) On the basis of the said report (Ex.P.8), a formal FIR (Ex.P.9), namely FIR No.114/05, was registered for offence under section 302, 201; the police started the investigation. During the course of investigation, the police arrested, Ayub Khan, Shyam Singh and Smt. Savitri Devi. The appellants were charged for offences under Section 302 and 201 IPC. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined twenty-one witnesses, and submitted fifty-one documents.;