VYAS, J. - (1.) APPELLANT- Sukhdeo Singh has filed two appeals; one through Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur and another through advocate, under Section 374, Cr. P. C. . Both the appeals are is directed against the judgment dated 22. 3. 2002, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur, whereby accused-appellant Sukhdeo Singh has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302, IPC, to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' additional imprisonment.
(2.) IN nut-shell, the prosecution case is that on 7. 12. 2001, at 9. 35 a. m. , one Girdhari Singh (PW. 1) lodged a report (Ex. P. 1) with the Police Station, Dechu stating, inter alia, therein that about two and half years ago, his deceased niece Geeta D/o. Roop Singh was married to appellant Sukhdeo Singh. Out of the wedlock, a son was born. It was further averred in the report that about fifteen days ago Sukhdeo Singh had dropped his wife -Geeta at the house of Roop Singh. A day before the incident, i. e. , on 6. 12. 2001, Roop Singh and his wife had gone to Dechu to attend the marriage, from where Roop Singh went with the Barat and did not return to home. On 6. 12. 2001, at about 9. 00 P. M. , Sukhdeo Singh had arrived village Kanodia Purohitan by hiring a Jeep from Dechu, which was being driven by one Dholi. The said Jeep dropped Sukhdeo Singh in the village house and returned back. When Sukhdeo Singh came to his house, the informant, his father- Mansingh and ladies were present in the house. It was also averred in the report that Sukhdeo Singh was served with a cup of tea and then, dinner. He was lodged at the house of Roop Singh along with Geeta and his son - Kishan. IN the morning, Geeta and baby were found dead and appellant Sukhdeo Singh missing. He suspected involvement of appellant Sukhdeo Singh in the crime. On the basis of the aforesaid report FIR (Ex. P. 34), Police registered a case under Section 302 IPC, and proceeded with investigation. During the course of investigation, Police inspected the site and sent the body for autopsy. The appellant was arrested. In pursuance of the information given by the appellant, recoveries of knife and blood stained clothes were made. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet under Section 302, IPC, was filed against the accused Sukhdeo Singh in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Balesar. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed to the Court of Session, from where it case was transferred for trial to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur. After hearing the arguments, the charges under Section 302, IPC, were framed against the accused-appellant. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses (PW. 1 to PW. 16) and exhibited 36 documents. In defence, the accused examined Dr. R. C. Bansal as DW. 1 and produced 3 documents Ex. D. 1 to Ex. D-3.
(3.) IN statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , appellant denied the correctness of prosecution evidence. He pleaded innocence. After hearing the final submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Sukhdeo Singh as mentioned above. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused- appellant that the accused has been falsely implicated in the murder of his wife and son as there is not an iota of evidence to connect him with the crime. Apart from that, it has not come out from the statements of the prosecution witnesses that there were inimical relations between the accused and his deceased wife. ;