BALCHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal preferred by appellant Balchand S/o Dalu, by caste Meghwal, resident of Ladpura, Police Station Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh is directed against the judgment and sentence dated 23.04.2008 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 42/2007.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 20.04.2007 complainant Govardhan submitted a written report at Police Station Rawatbhata to the effect that his grandmother Kanwari Bai, who was living with him at village Ladpura, used to keep all her ornaments with her and she used to go away from home without telling anybody. In the evening, his grandmother left the home and stayed at the house of Prabhu in the night. When he came to Ladpura in the evening, he came to know that dead body of his grandmother is lying on the way in front of the house of Prabhu Meghwal. On making enquiry, Prabhu told that during the day Balchand inflicted injury to Kanwari Bai, due to which she died. On inspecting the dead body, it was found that there were injuries on head and back and all the ornaments that she was wearing were missing. On the aforesaid report, FIR No. 70/2007 under Section 302, 394 IPC was registered and investigation was commenced by police.

(3.) THE counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of the trial Court and contended that the trial Court in Para No.22 of the judgment held that the statement of eye witness PW8 Parbulal was corroborated by PW9 Umkar and PW11 Gordhan. Whereas First Information Report Ex.P/14 itself contains this fact that Prabhulal Meghwal informed about the fact of incident to Umkarlal s/o Fatehji Meghwal. Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned trial court convicted the accused appellant under Section 394 IPC on the basis of recovery made by the Investigating Officer in pursuance of the information furnished under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act vide recovery memo Ex.P.20. THE motbirs of the above recovery memo Ex.P.20 were examined as P.W.16 Rajaram and P.W.17 Ratiram and the same were the witnesses who were the motbirs for the recovery of weapon of offence alleged to be axe which was recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P.19. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the cross-examination both these witnesses P.W.16 Rajaram and P.W.17 Ratiram deposed that their signatures were obtained on blank papers by the police in the village and they have denied the fact of recovery of articles. Moreover P.W.17 Ratiram deposed that for what purpose his signatures were obtained by the Investigating Officer, he does not know. In the absence of corroboration by independent witnesses of the fact of recovery of the ornaments as well as the weapon of offence, the testimony of the Investigating Officer cannot be relied upon, whereas the learned trial court solely relying upon the evidence of P.W.20 Bhagwan Sahay Investigating Officer and convicted the appellant accused under Section 394 I.P.C.