1. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor.This appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. is preferred to question the correctness of the judgment dated 30.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 2, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 2/2004, State v. Kaloo & Anr. , convicting the appellant-accused Kaloo S/o Magna Kharol for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and accused-appellant Bhagirath Bhaggu S/o Magna Kharol for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and each of the accused-appellants has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment whereof to further undergo 3 months' simple imprisonment.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 25.10.2003 PW-8 Surajmal lodged a written report (Ex.P-6) before SHO, Bagor (PW-11) against accused-appellants Bhagirath S/o Magna and Kaloo S/o Magna, inter alia, alleging that during the day at about 2 PM his son Gautam, aged 32 years, was going for 'darshan' of Mataji on his motorcycle then on the way, near Luharon-ka-Kuan (Well) of Bheelon-ka-Kheda aforesaid accused persons chased him out of enmity on another motorcycle, they intercepted his son and started beating him with lathis. Then Gehru S/o Nathu and Kalu S/o Rama rushed and intervened and rescued his son. The accused persons ran way assuming Gautam as dead. Gehru and Kalu have brought his son Gautam to Bagor hospital and he has come to report Police.

3. Upon this written complaint, SHO, Bagor registered F.I.R. No. 120/2003 (Ex.P-7) for offence under Sections 323, 341 I.P.C. Later, due to death of Gautam, offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was also added. During investigation, site inspection (Ex.P-1) was made, panchnama of dead body was conducted. Accused-appellant Kaloo and Bhagirath were arrested vide Exs.P-14 and P-15 on 25.10.2003. Lathi (Ex.P-4) was recovered on the basis of information by Kaloo (Ex.P-16) and motorcycle (Ex.P-3) was recovered on the basis of information given by Bhagirath (Ex.P-17). Injury report (Ex.P-21) and post-mortem report (Ex.P-22) of deceased Gautam were also obtained and thereafter, challan for offence under Sections 302, 120B I.P.C. was filed on 9.12.2003 before the Judicial Magistrate, Mandal. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and ultimately, trial was made by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No. 2, Bhilwara.

4. Learned trial Judge framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against accused-appellant Kaloo S/o Magna and under Section 302/34 I.P.C. against accused-appellant Bhagirath S/o Magna. The accused-appellants denied the charges and claimed trial.

5. During the trial, the prosecution supported its case by producing 21 witnesses and exhibiting 25 documents. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant negated the prosecution evidence and contended that they have been falsely implicated out of enmity and they did not murder Gautam. In their evidence, DW-1 Kaloo was examined and in documentary evidence, Police statement of Bheru Lal (Ex.D-1), Police statement of Bhanwar Lal (Ex.D-2) and Police statement of Lalit (Ex.D-3) were adduced by the accused-appellants.

6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while relying upon testimony of the prosecution witnesses, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, in the terms mentioned herein above, vide impugned judgment dated 30.10.2004. Aggrieved thereby, present appeal has been filed.

7. In the appeal, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants that the trial Court has erred in relying upon statements of the prosecution witnesses and convicting the accused-appellants for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 302/34 I.P.C. through essential ingredients constituting such offence are not established. It is contended that the learned trial Judge has not scrutinised prosecution evidence in its true perspective.

8. Learned counsel for the