STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SATNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a State appeal against the acquittal of the accused respondent under Sections 302 and 394 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar vide his judgment dated 26 -4 -1967.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this case are that a FIR was filed by Hirasingh, grand father of the accused Satnamsingh to the effect that on 11 -12 -1974 Satnamsingh came at about 10 p.m. and he knocked the door but he was in a drunken condition, therefore, he did not open the door. But his grand -son Shersingh opened the door and brought Satnamsingh in the house. Satnamsingh slept in the night but he did not get up in the morning at usual. Therefore he went to the place of sleeping and removed his quilt. On removing his quilt he found that his payjama and shirt were blood stained. He also called his son Jogendrasingh and thereafter both of them asked Satnam Singh as to how his clothes were blood stained. Satnamsingh told them that he and one Ramchander S/o Banwarilal Jat had a quarrel with that person. He informed them that both of them have murdered that person and snatched Rs. 800/ - from him. Ramchander another co -accused was called and he was asked about the incident. He also admitted the same. Thereafter a First Information was filed. The pc lice reached on the scene of occurrence where the dead body was lying. During the course of investigation, the police prepared the site plan, site inspection memo, Panchana and the police seized two bricks from the scene of occurrence and effected necessary recoveries. The dead body of the deceased was seized and sent for post mortem. The accused Ram Chander became an approver and therefter the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. But during the trial, the approver changed his statement and denied his earlier version and wanted to exculpate himself and the part played by him. The learned Sessions Judge after due trial came to the conclusion that the testimony of such approver cannot be acted upon and as a result of which he acquitted the accused appellant Aggrieved against this the State has preferred the present appeal before this court.

(3.) THUS , we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.