JUDGMENT :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The appellant Bhoop Ram has been convicted and sentenced as below vide the impugned judgment dated 11.12.1989 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 63/1986.

2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and the sentences awarded to him, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.

3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are that on 16.08.1986, Bheem Singh (PW-10), SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Town was on patrolling duty along with other constables of the police station. At about 7:30 p.m. when they reached at Village Munde, he noticed that some people had gathered near the wine shop. Upon inquiry, they disclosed that Villa which was situated near the wine shop was reeking and some blood was also splattered over there. After this, Nathu Ram called Carpenter Heera Lal, who broke the lock of the Villa and a dead body was found lying on the floor which was discoloured and full of foul smell. Constable Rajendra identified the dead-body to be of one Gopi Ram Jat R/o Village Munde, who was working as salesman at the wine shop. Sharp edged injuries were noticed on the face of the deceased which gave rise to the assumption that Gopi Ram had been murdered by an unknown person on the intervening night of 14-15 August, 1986 and after commission of murder, his dead body was placed in the Villa.

4. On the basis of the above, an FIR No. 155/1986 (Ex.P/4) came to be registered at the Police Station Hanumangarh Town, District Sri Ganganagar and investigation commenced. Accused-appellant Bhoop Ram was arrested on 31.08.1986 and after conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him in the Court of the Magistrate concerned for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. As the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar from where it was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused for the above mentioned offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents to prove its case. The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He denied the same and claimed to be innocent. Only one witness was examined in defence and some documents were tendered into evidence. After hearing the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the accused-appellant as above. Hence, this appeal.

5. Mr. Jagdish Vishnoi, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated. The FIR was lodged after an undue delay of two days and there is no tangible explanation for causing delay in lodging of the FIR. He submitted that the eye-witness account of the incident is not available on record and the circumstances put forth against the appellant are neither definite in tendency nor conclusive in nature. There was no motive for the appellant to commit the murder of Gopi Ram. He further