GOPAL LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By The Court (Per Hon'ble Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.) :

(2.) It is the prosecution case that on May 18, 1994 at 10 am Constable Suwa Lal of Police chowki Kanota informed Police Station Bassi that unknown dead body was lying in the river Dhoond. On receiving the information Kushal Singh, SHO along with police party reached at the spot and recovered the dead body. A criminal case against unknown culprit was registered and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body was conducted and it was cremated. On May 20, 1994 Sita Ram (Pw.3) and Bhona Ram (Pw.26) came to the police station and identified the belongings recovered from the dead body as of Kana ram. In the course of investigation it was revealed that on March 13,1994 Kana Ram and Fauja Ram (now deceased) had gone with appellant Gopal who hired them as workmen for some labour work. At that time Kana Ram was wearing Hansli made of silver (round shape ornament) on his neck and ear-rings on his ears made of gold. When they did not return a report of missing was lodged on May 16, 1994 at police station Sodala. Thereafter another dead body was recovered on May 22, 1994 by Police Station Bassi. The dead body was identified as of Fauja Ram by Panchhi (Pw.4). A criminal case was registered and investigation commenced. The appellant Gopal was arrested in both the cases. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellants. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jaipur District Jaipur. Charges under Sections 302 and 394 Indian Penal Code were framed against appellant Gopal and under section 411 Indian Penal Code against the appellants Santosh Kumar and Ramesh Chand, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 31 witnesses and got exhibited 60 documents. In the explanation under section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) We have heard the submissions advanced before us and scrutinised the material on record.