Mohammad Rafiq, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.09.2008 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) whereby the accused-appellant Mahaveer Prasad has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment; under Section 449 IPC to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months’ rigorous imprisonment; under Section 376/511 IPC to five years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 04.11.2006 at 01.05 P.M., one unknown person informed Virendra Kumar, SHO, Police Station Mrulipura regarding murder of one Archana Sharma. The information was entered in Rojnamcha (Exhibit P-84) and the police went to the place of incident. At the place of incident, Sandeep Sharma, brother of the deceased Archana Sharma submitted a written report (Exhibit P-35) alleging therein that on 04.11.2006 at 9.00 A.M. he had gone to the Hospital for checkup of his mother. On return to the house at around 12.30 P.M., they found pool of blood in the hall of the house and his younger sister Archana Sharma was lying dead in the kitchen. Thereafter, he called his neighbour Bahadur Singh Jakhad and asked him to inform the police. The police then reached over there. It appears that someone has committed murder of his sister Archana Sharma.

3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, the police registered FIR No. 318/2006 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and started investigation. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 and 376/511 IPC. On committal, learned trial court framed charges against the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 449, 376/511, 302 IPC, which he denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 29 witnesses and also got 100 documents exhibited. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the allegations. In his defence, the appellant examined Matadeen (DW-1) and also got 12 documents exhibited. On conclusion of trial, the trial court vide judgment dated 20.09.2008 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner as indicated hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.

4. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the accused appellant argued that conviction recorded by the trial court is not legally sustainable being contrary to the provisions of law as also from the material available on record. The prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, no finding of conviction could have been recorded against the appellant. There are several infirmities and contradictions in the statements of witnesses, and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of such witnesses. Conviction based on such evidence is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. Sentence awarded by the learned trial court is excessive. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place, there is no justification to award such excessive sentence. It is argued that the statement of accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not been recorded in accordance with the provisions of law, as all incriminating circumstances were not put to him. Sufficient opportunity of defence was not afforded to appellant. The prosecution witnesses are highly interested witnesses and their testimony also suffers from infirmities. Though the independent witnesses were available, bu