PALSHIKAR, J. - (1.) Being aggrieved by the order of conviction dated July 27, 1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Gangangar in Sessions Case No. 48 of 1992 convicting the accused appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo sentence of imprisonment for life the appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal as also canvassed orally by the learned counsel appearing on his behalf.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal, stated briefly, are that on 4-3-1992 at about 8.30 a.m. first information report was lodged by one Hari Prasad Meena in Police Station, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar that he was working on the Kaluwala check post along with two Homeguards Kamal Singh and Ram Chandra of Border Home Guard. He further reported that at about 6.45 a.m. a man drenching wet came to the Check-post and disclosed his name as Ramesh son of Bhalu Ram Kumar, resident of Ward No. 37, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar and said that he i.e. Ramesh has at about 5.00 a.m. killed his wife and children and wanted to commit suicide but could not as the water in Ganga Canal was shallow. On this report further investigation was taken up. The accused was then arrested. On completion of investigation he was duly prosecuted. In support of the prosecution 15 witnesses were examined. On appreciation of the evidence as recorded the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid to suffer imprisonment for life.
(3.) Shri Doongar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused challenged the order of conviction on several grounds, namely, (a) that the entire evidence on record on the basis of which conviction is ordered is unacceptable, unreliable and therefore, insufficient for recording conviction. He claimed therefore, that the order of conviction is liable to be set aside, (b) there is no eye witness account of the incident and the entire conviction rests on extra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused. Each confession is liable to be rejected as it is not admissible in evidence; (c) the evidence of neighbouring witnesses who came on the site of crime immediately after knowledge of crime contradict the evidence of witnesses who heard the extra judicial confession and, therefore, the order of conviction is not liable to be maintained; and (d) no motive is established by the prosecution for which accused could have murdered his wife and children. ;