OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.10.1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in sessions case No. 11/91 convicting the accused appellant of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment to further undergo 2 months' R.I. The appellant has also been convicted of offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to 1 year's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - in default of payment to further undergo 1 month's R.I. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that PW/2 Suryabhan Singh submitted a report written by PW/1 Banshi Lal at Police Station, Raipur stating interalia that his younger brother Badri Lal was living in house outside the village for last more than 20 years. He used to live alone. As Badri Lal was sick for last 7 to 8 days he had gone to enquire about his health. On opening the main gate, he did not find Badri on the cot. He entered in the house thinking that he might have gone to answer call of the nature. After about 1/2 an hour Ram Chandra and Kalu passed through from that side. He called them and entered inside. He found blood on the floor. There were also sign of dragging. On search, he found the dead body of Badri dumped in a pit. He also found a shirt smeared with blood on the spot. On this information. Police registered a case of offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and proceeded with the investigation. The police prepared the inquest and sent the body of Badri Lal for Post -Mortem. The statement of PW/3 Dalpat Singh was recorded on 26.10.1990 wherein he disclosed that the murder was committed by the accused Omprakash. The accused appellant was arrested on 31.10.1990. A 'Kulhari' and Watch were recovered in pursuance of the information given by the accused. After usual investigation, Police laid chargesheet against the accused appellant of offence under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C.

(3.) ASSAILING the conviction, Mr. P.N. Mohnani, learned Counsel for the appellant has severally criticised the testimony of PW/3 Dalpat. It is submitted that PW/3 is a got -up witness. He did not disclose the identity of the accused at the earliest to anybody including his mother and sister. He also submitted that Dalpat was kept in police custody for 15 days. With respect to the injury on his palm, it is submitted that though even according to the police, he was first interrogated on 26.10.1990 but, he was medically examined as late on 3.11.1990. It is submitted that the explanation given by the Investigating Officer in that regard clearly shows that the police was working under the pressure of outside agency. On the other hand Mr. Panny Singh has supported the judgment of the trial court.