JUDGMENT :

Sabina, J.

1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence as ordered by the trial court vide judgment/order dated 22.10.2013 qua offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').

2. FIR No. 357 dated 21.09.2012 was registered at Police Station Dholpur Kotwali, District Dholpur under Section 302 IPC on the basis of report lodged by Assistant Sub-Inspector-Ramdayal.

3. As per FIR, prosecution story, in brief, is that on 21.09.2012 at about 6.00 a.m., complainant received an information that on the Bhamtipura crossing, a dead body of a person was lying in a pool of blood. On receiving the said information, complainant reached the spot along with constable Rai Singh. On reaching the spot, they saw that dead body of a person was lying in a naked condition. Road was blood stained. One person, namely Kelo @ Kailashi was standing there in a hyper condition and was saying that he had killed the deceased because he had entered his house without permission.

4. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.

5. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

6. Appellant did not plead guilty to the charge framed against him and claimed trial.

7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses, during trial. Appellant when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case.

8. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

9. Trial court vide the impugned judgment/order dated 22.10.2013 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that independent witnesses had not supported the prosecution case, during trial. No reliance could be placed on the testimony of the complainant as well as PW-6 Rai Singh because the said witnesses had deposed falsely for the success of their case. Any statement made by the appellant before the police officials was not admissible in evidence. Lot of padding had been done in the case with a view to falsely involve the appellant in the case. In the FIR, it was not stated that murder had been committed in the house of the appellant. The story that blood stained articles were recovered from the house of the appellant, had been later falsely introduced in the case by the prosecution to strengthen its case.

11. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal.

12. Present case relates to murder of an unknown person.

PW-4 Doctor Rajendra Goyal had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 22.09.2012 and he proved the postmortem examination report Exhibit-P-4. A perusal of Exhibit-P-4 reveals that the deceased had suffered three injuries and cause of death of the deceased was due to injuries to vital organ brain and abdominal injury. Deceased had suffered excessive hemorrhage.

FIR in the present case was lodged by Assistant Sub-Inspector Ramdayal. The said witness while appearing in the witness box as PW-5 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. Statement of PW-5 is corroborated by PW-6 Rai Singh.

PW-5 Ramdayal in his cross-examination has deposed that the incident had occurred in the house of the appellant as well as outside his house. However, the fact that the incident had occurred in the house of the appellant was not mentioned in the FIR or in his police statement. So far as PW-5 Ramdayal and PW-6 Rai Singh are concerned, they are both police officials. The fact that the occurrence had also occurred in the house of the appellant was required to be mentioned in the FIR. It is not a case where FIR had been lodged by a layman. So far as PW-5 is concerned, he can be said to be aware of the intricacies of law and was required to have stated all the relevant facts, noticed by him at th