BISAWAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No.517/04, Bisawan Vs. State was received in this Court from Superintendent, Central Jail, Bharatpur. Another Appeal, i.e., D.B. Criminal Appeal No.518/2004, Bisawan Vs. State of Rajasthan, was filed on behalf of the said appellant by Sh.Praveen Balwada, Advocate. This appeal was barred by limitation and the delay of 35 days in filing the appeal was condoned by this Court vide order dated 30.04.04. D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1672/03, Pooran Chand alias Pooranmal was filed on behalf of the said appellant by Sh. V.S. Yadav, Advocate. As in all the above three appeals, the judgment passed by Sh. Hari Kishan Khichar, R.H.J.S., Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Behror, District Alwar in Sessions Case No.28/03 (69/02), State Vs. Bisawan and another under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. by which the appellants were convicted for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment, they were to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each, all the three appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that at 11.30 a.m. on 20.07.02, Manaram S/o Prabha Ram resident of Mehenpur informed Police Station Bansoor on telephone that dead body of an unknown person aged about 35 years is lying in the forest of Mehenpur, Khadla. On getting the information, Onkar Singh, ASI, made an entry about it in Rojnamcha Ext.P16. He informed S.P., Alwar and Additional S.P., Bhiwadi about the said information by wireless and talked to S.H.O. Bansoor on telephone, as he had gone to attend the meeting at Bansoor. Sh. Onkar Singh A.S.I. alongwith police personnel went to the site from the police station, while S.H.O. Bansoor reached the spot directly. Pooran Chand S/o Onkar submitted a written report Ext.P12 to S.H.O. Bansoor at the site stating therein that his younger brother, Girraj, resident of village Dhakla, left his house in the morning of 18.07.02 alongwith Pooran Chand s/o Prahlad Gujar, Bisawan S/o Ghhitar Gujar residents of village Dhawdi, and Ram Charan S/o Johri resident of Mehenpur. After completing the work in Tehsil Bansoor, they went to attend the marriage of the daughter of Arjun Sarpanch. Thereafter, Ram Kanwar and Raghu Nath sons of Chhajuram Gujar, residents of Dhani Garal also went with them. After murdering Girraj, his dead body was thrown in Mehenpur Ka Nala. The police was requested to take necessary action. The aforesaid written report was sent to the Police Station, Bansoor where an FIR No.144/02 under Sections 147 and 302 I.P.C. was registered. The police conducted an investigation. The dead body was seized and its postmortem was got conducted on the spot by the team of Doctors. The police took samples of plain earth, and blood stained earth from the spot. The appellants were arrested. They gave information under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act which was recorded. The police inspected the site alongwith the appellants and prepared Memos Ext.P10. One blood stained stone was also recovered. At the conclusion of the investigation, the police submitted a report against the appellants under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bansoor. The police also concluded that no offence is proved against Ram Charan, Ram Kanwar and Raghunath. The appellants were committed for standing trial to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bansoor from where the case was transferred for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Bansoor. Charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 19 witnesses, documents Ext.P1 to P37 and articles 1 to 6 to support its case. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants stated that the witnesses have falsely deposed against them and they are innocent. However, they did not produce any witness in defense - only documents Ext.D1 to D8 were got exhibited. After hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court held the appellants guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them as mentioned above.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsels for the appellants and the Public Prosecutor carefully at length and gone through the judgment of the learned Trial Court. We have also scanned the file of the Trial Court.