BHERULAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Udaipur, dated 9.3.2006, whereby he has convicted the appellant Bheru Lal of the offence u/s.302 Penal Code & sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.5000.00 & in default, to further undergo six months' S.I. and of the offence under Sec.201 Penal Code & sentenced him to undergo five years' R.I. alongwith a fine of Rs.2000.00 & in default, to further undergo three months' S.I.

(2.) Facts leading to this appeal are that on 14.5.05, one Shyamlal lodged a report at Police Station, Dabok, Udaipur that during the afternoon at about 2 PM, two labourers viz; Mohanlal and Kalu, who used to collect seeds in the Forest Division came to him and informed that a dead body was lying underneath the stones near the 'Mama Dev Nala', which was giving foul odour. He alongwith his staff and labourers went there and noticed the dead body lying there. He also noticed the stones, stained with blood. The deceased was wearing pants and shirt. It appears that somebody had killed him. The police registered a case on this report vide Ex.P.1 and commenced investigation. The dead body was recovered. The post mortem was conducted. Thereafter, accused appellant Bherulal was arrested and on his information, the shirt was recovered, which was sent for chemical examination. After investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the accused appellant for the offences u/ss.302 and 201 Penal Code before the court of learned Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Learned Addl.Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Udaipur framed the charges against the accused appellant to which he pleaded not guilty & claimed trial. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s.313 CrPC. He led no evidence in his defence. After hearing the arguments, learned trial Judge convicted & sentenced the accused appellant as above.

(3.) While assailing the judgment of the learned trial Judge, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no eye witness in this case. The FIR has been lodged after a delay of seven days and the statements of last seen witnesses have been recorded after one month of the incident, which is not natural, as there was no motive of the accused Bherulal to kill the deceased Kailash, who was his brother-inlaw. According to him, the dead body was decomposed and it was not properly identified, except the clothes of the deceased and shirt of accused appellant on the information furnished by him u/s.27 of the Evidence Act, which is Ex.P.32. According to him, in the FSL Report, Ex.P.33, the clothes recovered were found stained with human blood but no blood group was detected. While relying upon the various decisions of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case of no evidence and the accused Bherulal has been falsely implicated, therefore, he should be acquitted.