1. - These appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4.7.1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Bhilwara whereby accused-Bhairu Lal has been convicted for offence Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000, in default of payment whereof, to further undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment.

2. Both these appeals have been filed assailing aforesaid judgment dated 4.7.1997 by the accused-appellant-Bhairu Lal. One has been forwarded through Superintendent of the Jail and other has been filed through his Advocate, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The charges against the accused-appellant are that at about 3.30 p.m. on 11.8.1996 in Bhilwara township, in the temple of Balaji situated at Paldi road, he stabbed to death Pappu Singh @ Bhanwar Singh. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, therefore, prosecution examined 17 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. In his statements u/s. 313, Cr.P.C., accused denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleading that he has been falsely framed. No evidence was produced in defence and the learned Trial Court, after relying upon testimony of PW-1 Bajrang Singh, PW-3 Devkaran and that of PW-11 Surendra Kumar, supported by medical evidence as also recovery of blood-stained clothes and steering wheel cover & key ring of Maruti car; convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as stated above.

4. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this was a blind murder and there were no eye-witnesses of the occurrence and that the accused-appellant had been implicated on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures. The clothes and other articles allegedly recovered from the accused though w9re sent for chemical examination yet no report was sought from the FSL and there were material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and despite material omissions and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses, accused-appellant has been convicted. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and conviction.

5. We have carefully scanned and shifted the prosecution evidence and, to our utter surprise, found that at the time of arrest, pant and shirt worn by the accused-appellant were found blood stained, which were seized and sealed vide memo Ex.P/15. Similarly, Maruti car which was being driven by the accused, was also seized immediately after the occurrence vide seizure memo Ex.P/17. The cover of the steering wheel of the car as also key ring were also smeared with blood, which were seized and sealed then and there. All these articles along with blood-stained clothes of the deceased, were deposited first in the Malkhana of the Police Station same day, in sealed condition and thereafter, were deposited with the FSL with seals intact vide receipt Ex.P/21, sent through PW-17 Babu Mohammed, on 20.8.1996 yet without waiting for the report of chemical examination, accused was charged on 6.11.1996 and in a hot hurry, prosecution evidence was closed on 27.6.1997, thereby an important piece of evidence was not procured.

6. It was expected from the trial Court to have procured report from the FSL. If it was not forthcoming, the same should have been procured by writing DO letter to the Director, FSL. Be that as it may, simply because report of chemical examination on the above articles was not sought that by itself will not weaken the prosecution case. Had it been procured, it would also have thrown some light on the verasity and may have corroborated to some extent the prosecution case. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel is not tenable in the wake of other evidence available on the record.

7. The occurrence took place at about 3.50 p.m. on 11.8.1996 at the temple of Tanki-ke-Balaji. A phone call was made by some unknown person to Police Station Subhash Nagar at 3.50 p.m. that at Pal