BABLU ALIAS BULBUL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED appellant Bablu @ Bulbul has come up in appeal before this court challenging the judgment and order dated 15. 11. 1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, thereby convicting appellant Bablu under Section 302 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 3. 2. 1995, PW1 Mohand Lal submitted a written report Ex. P. 1 at Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur, thereby informing the Station House Officer that the residents of the locality have informed at about 5. 30 PM about a dead body lying in the forest behind Mahadev Temple and the dogs were eating the dead body. Upon this report, police registered a case vide report Exp. 2 and initiated proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P. C. The Police rushed to the place where dead body was lying and prepared site plan Ex. P. 3 and seized a match box, two bodies, one photograph of unknown deceased, two packets of medicine, one packet of Natraj tobaco (Jarda), Rs. 100 cash, eight lottery tickets, one hook of silver of `s' shape from the place of occurrence, vide memo Ex. P. 4. The police also seized two stones smeared with blood and blood stained hairs from the place of occurrence vide Ex. P5 and P. 6 respectively. The Police prepared inquest memo Ex. P. 7 and seized blood smeared cloths viz. , one shirt, baniyan, belt, pent (trouser) a pair of shoes of deceased vide seizure memo Ex. P. 8.

(3.) ON conclusion of trial, hearing arguments and on the basis of material and evidence on record, the trial court found the charges under Sections 302 and 379 IPC established beyond doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as stated above. Hence this appeal against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.