SUKHPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - These appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 14.6.2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh, by which he convicted all accused persons under section 302/34 IPC and sentenced each accused to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment and also convicted accused Ranjha under section 379 IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year's simple imprisonment.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are, that PW.1 Hetram lodged FIR Ex.P/1 on 19.03.2001 at 11.30 a.m. and stated, that he is Sarpanch of village, and at 7.30 a.m., Binder Singh informed him, that a dead body is lying in siphon near his field. On this information, he along with Ex- Sarpanch Ram Singh and Binder Singh went on spot and found, that a dead body, smeared with blood, was lying. It appears, that some unknown persons have caused murder in night. On this report, case was registered and after completion of investigation, challan was filed against accused appellants under sections 302, 379 read with section 34 IPC in the Court of ACJM, Hanumangarh. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, which was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh. Charges were framed against accused Ranjha under section 302, in the alternate 302/34 and 379 IPC, and against accused Om Prakash and Sukhpal under section 302, in the alternate 302/34 IPC, to which, they denied. Additional Sessions Judge recorded statements of six witnesses, and then the case was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hanumangarh, who recorded statements of another seven witnesses. After recording statements under section 313 Cr.P.C., defence examined one witness and after hearing arguments, accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) Learned counsel for accused-appellants argued, that prosecution has failed to prove, that accused were last seen with deceased, any extra judicial confession was made by the accused persons, any recovery of blood stained clothes, shirt and watch were made at the instance of accused persons, and any foot marks of the accused were found near the scene of occurrence,motive for committing offence, even then the trial court has committed error in convicting accused appellants, hence, appeals may be accepted, and they may be acquitted of the charges. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor argued, that the trial court has given cogent reasons for conviction and the prosecution has proved the case against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt, hence, appeal of the accused-appellants may be dismissed.