SHYAM @ CHHANGA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was preferred by Shyam @ Chhanga and Panga @ Rajendra against the judgment dtd. 30/9/1996 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Behror, District Alwar in Sessions Case No. 88/1992, convicting the accused-appellants under Sec. 302 IPC. Vide order of even date, the appellants were sentenced life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000.00 was imposed. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

(2.) During pendency of this appeal, Shyam @ Chhanga expired and the appeal was abated qua appellant No. 1--Shyam @ Chhanga on 22/9/2015. The appeal survives for Panga @ Rajendra (hereinafter referred to as Rs.appellant').

(3.) The facts as set up by the prosecution are that on 16/1/1991 Amilal Yadav lodged a complaint that in evening of 15/1/1991 at about 7.00 p.m., he along- with his brother Dharampal (hereinafter referred to as Rs.deceased') were at their shop when the complainant left for village. On 16/1/1991 at about 10.30 a.m. complainant brought food for the deceased but found that shop was locked. The complainant waited till 4 O' clock and then on opening the shop after cutting the lock, found the deceased lying dead on a bench. A woolen gents shawl (hereinafter referred to as Rs.shawl') was wrapped like a noose around the neck of the deceased. In the shop a glass lying on the table reeked of alcohol. The cutting of the mattress on which the deceased vomited, a woolen cap and the liquor from the glass after sealing in a bottle were recovered from the site and seizure memo Ex.P.12 was prepared. PW-11 Sundar Lal and PW-14 complainant were witnesses of recovery memo. FIR No. 11/1991 was registered at Police Station Shahjahanpur, Alwar. During investigation Shyamlal @ Chhanga and appellant were nominated as accused. Recovery of key of the lock of the shop was made at the instance of Shyamlal @ Chhanga. After filing the charge-sheet, charges were framed under Ss. 302 and 380 IPC. In a statement recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. it was stated to be a case of false implication and trial was claimed. The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses and exhibited thirty two documents. In defence, two documents were exhibited. The Trial Court on considering the facts and appreciating the evidence convicted the accused. Hence, the present appeal.