BHANWAR SINGH ALIAS BHANWARIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned judgment and order dated November 06, 2003, the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, in Sessions Case No. 72/2003, convicted appellant Bhanwar Sigh alias Bhanwariya by caste Rajput R/o village Newara, Police Station, Mathaniya, district Jodhpur, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellantaccused, by way of this jail appeal, has challenged the conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge in the aforesaid Sessions Case.

(2.) The facts of the case, in succinct, are that on 03.3.2003, at 8:14 AM, one Mahendra Singh (PW 14) lodged an FIR with the Police Station, Mathaniya, district Jodhpur, stating therein that in Gram Panchayat, Newara, about 25 to 30 years ago, one person named as Sumera Ram came and started residing there. He was getting disablement pension from the State Government and also used to beg breads and other eatable items from the villagers. A night before lodging of the FIR, one unknown person caused death of Sumera Ram by causing injuries to him. Deceased Sumera Ram 60 years old and was dump. On the aforesaid report, a criminal case under Section 302 IPC was registered as FIR No.29 dated 10.3.2003 and the investigation ensued. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statements of witnesses, arrested the appellant-accused and in pursuance of the information furnished by the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and at the instance of the appellant, a stone was recovered; the post-mortem on the dead-body of Sumera Ram was conducted and after investigation, the police filed Challan in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, recorded the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 302 IPC and awarded him the sentence as afore-stated.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellantaccused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The counsel for the appellant urges that the prosecution story hinges on threee sets of evidence against the appellant: firstly, the evidence regarding last seen of the appellant with the deceased is led by the prosecution is that of Smt. Radha, who saw appellant with deceased Sumera Ram in the Guwadi near his residence in the night; secondly is regarding extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before PW 6 Chain Singh; and the third set of evidence is regarding recovery of Rs.37/- from the appellant in pursuance to information recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.