RAM CHARAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Trivedi, J. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24-4-1979 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur, convicting the appellant u/s. 302 IPC, and sentencing him to Imprisonment for Life in connection with an incident which is alleged to have taken place in the night between 9/10-6-1977 in village Radauli Police Station Maholi District Sitapur.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that P. W. 1 Hiralal went to his Kothari at about 5 O'clock in the morning and there he saw that the deceased was lying with Razai covered on his face. He called him but when he found no reply then he removed the Razai and found that Govardhan was dead and a piece of cloth had been found tied all around his neck. After sending information about the death of Govardhan P. W. 1 Hiralal went to the Police Station and lodged the report Ext. Ka-1 at 7. 35 AM. THE dis tance of the Police Station from the place of the incident is three miles. In the First Infor mation Report it is said that the com plainant had a suspicion that appellant Ram Charan had killed the deceased with the help of two other accused persons namely Piarey and Kaushal who have been ac quitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. FIR was lodged in the presence of P. WT9 Inspector Shyam Singh who immedi ately proceeded to the place of the incident and recorded the statement of Hiralal and other witnesses. He also prepared inquest report an other relevant papers Ext. Ka-7 to Ka-12 and sent the dead body to mortuary for post mortem examination. He also recovered the blood stained Razai, Batua and Angauchha and sealed the same and prepared the recovery memo. He arrested appellant Ram Charan on 15-6-1977 at about 4. 00 A. M. and on his interrogation Ram Charan informed the Investigating Of ficer that he had concealed the Tabeez and Batua of the deceased in his Kothri. On his disclosure the Investigating Officer called the witnesses and thereafter recovered the Batua and Tabeez from the room of the appellant on his pointing out. THE inves tigation was thereafter handed over to In spector Shyam Raj P. W. 3 who submitted charge- sheet in this case.

(3.) ON the. other hand the accused denied the prosecution case and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case.