SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE appellants were convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge Bundi as under: Ramesh : U/s. 302 IPC : To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/ -. U/s. 376 (2) IPC : to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/ -. Bajrang Lal and Rajmal @ Raju: U/s. 302/34 IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/ -. U/s. 376 (2) IPC: Each to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 100/ -. THE substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE three appeals preferred against the finding of conviction were however allowed by this court and the appellants stood acquitted of the said charges. THE finding of acquittal was primarily founded on the assumption that since the star witness of the prosecution viz. , Rukma (PW-4) behaved as if she was accomplice, her evidence could not have been relied upon. This finding of acquittal has been set aside by the Supreme Court. Vide order dated July 11, 2006. THEir Lordships of the Supreme Court remanded the case to decide it afresh with the following observations: " In view of the other proposed to be passed by us, we do not intend to enter into the merit of the matter. We are of the opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court appears to have committed a manifest error in proceeding on the basis that PW-4 Rukma was an accomplice. In any event, no sufficient or cogent reason has been assigned in support of the said conclusion. Furthermore, once that part of the finding of the High Court is set aside, the evidence of PW-4 could undoubtedly be considered for proving the prosecution case, as she was not an accomplice. Necessarily the other part of the judgment cannot be sustained. THE High Court, in our opinion, should have dealt with the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge and considered the matter more closely and examined the materials brought on records by the prosecution. " We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and with their assistance closely scanned the judgment of learned trial Judge and the other materials on record. It is the prosecution case that Hajari Lal (PW-2) Administrator of Gram Panchayat Baswada forwarded a written report to Police Station Lakheri on January 30, 1993 through one Ram Niwas for taking into custody a dead body that was lying on the road between Bada Kheda and Baswada. Upon the said written report, Police Station Lakheri initiated proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P. C. and a criminal case under Section 302 IPC was registered. In the course of investigation the deceased was identified a Foriya by one Rukma (PW-4), who deposed that deceased was her husband by Nata. She also stated that Ramesh Chand, Rajmal and Bajrang Lal (appellants) committed murder of her husband, raped her and forcibly took her anklet and nose pin. The police aided Sections 376 nd 394 IPC along with Section 3 SC/st (PA) Act, 1989 and investigation commenced. Necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses got recorded, the appellants were drawn, statements of witnesses got recorded, the appellants were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Bundi. Charges under Sections 302, 302/34, 376 and 392 IPC were framed. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 36 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. On hearing final submissions learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. The appellants were however acquitted of the charge under Section 392 IPC. The prosecution case is founded on the testimony of Rukma (PW-4 ). In the opinion of learned trial Judge Rukma was a witness of sterling worth. The infirmities shown in the testimony of Rukma were found by him as insignificant and not fatal to the prosecution case. In order to adjudge the finding of learned trial Judge it is necessary to closely scrutinize the evidence of Rukma (PW-4 ). In her deposition she stated that the appellants killed Foriya by inflicting knife blows on his person and took her with them. She had to live with appellant ramesh for two days and three nights and one day finding Ramesh sleeping, she some how escaped and reached to the police station Indergarh where she narrated the incident to the SHO who got the report noted down and she put her thumb impression on the report. She remained in the police station for about 15 days. Relevant portion of Rukma's statement reads as under: ***
(3.) RUKMA also admitted to have lodged the report at Police Station Lakheri: *** After the incident Rukma had crossed the river while climbing on the shoulders of appellant Ramesh: *** She was also made to ride on the boat in the company of many persons: *** Rukma and appellant Ramesh together visited and stayed at various places. Rukma herself told Babu Lal (PW-5) that she and Ramesh were sister and brother as she was the daughter of maternal aunt of Ramesh. ;