ORDER :

1. Accused-appellant, Manohar Lal Dethudia has preferred the present appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. aggrieved against the judgment dated 13.11.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh (‘the trial court’) in Session Case No.37/2005 whereby Manohar Lal Dethudia was convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him as under:

2. During pendency of the present appeal, accused/appellant Manohar Lal Dethudia died on 01.07.2020 and an application under proviso to Section 394 (2) Cr.P.C. was filed by his wife, Smt. Santosh Bai, which came to be allowed on 20.07.2022 while condoning the delay in filing the application and the applicant Smt. Santosh Bai was granted leave to continue the appeal.

3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

4. A report (Exhibit-P/41) was lodged by Smt. Sunita on 03.04.2005 wife of Nandlal Thakre (deceased), inter-alia, indicating that her husband Nandlal had left at 08.00 am on 31.03.2005 on his new motorcycle and didn’t return that night. On enquiries, she came to know that her husband was with Kan Singh Chouhan on 31.03.2005 and his motorcycle was parked at his quarter. When her brother-in-law Keshavji (elder brother of her husband) went to the house of Kan Singh, his wife Vimla Devi told him that he would return from wherever he has gone, he could have gone to Beawar. She indicated that her husband had illicit relations with Vimla, wife of Kan Singh, and therefore, her husband be searched.

5. On 09.04.2005, another report (Exhibit-P/39) was lodged by wife of Nandlal, reiterating the contents of her complaint dated 03.04.2005 and indicated that since lodging of the complaint on 03.04.2005, they were searching for her husband, however, they failed. She indicated that her husband was at the residence of Vimla Devi on 31.03.2005, the whole day and in the night. Anand, son of her brother-in-law Keshavji, saw Vimla Devi and her husband alongwith two persons going somewhere on motorcycle. She indicated that she suspected that Vimla Devi, Kan Singh and her family members have abducted him, killed him and have misappropriated the motorcycle.

6. On 10.04.2005, Keshav, brother of the deceased made another report (Exhibit-P/42) indicating that on 9th night, he received information about some dead body was lying in a ‘Nala’, however, they could not see it in the night and on the next day morning, they saw clothes, sleepers of his brother Nandlal and also his skeleton and his motorcycle was also parked there; and therefore, he was making the report. Based on the said report (Exhibit-P/42), F.I.R. (Exhibit-P/40) was registered by the police, wherein names of suspects were indicated as Vimla Devi, Kan Singh and his family members, as it was alleged by Smt. Sunita wife of deceased that her husband has illicit relations with Vimla and he had lent Rs.4,00,000/-to Vimla and Kan Singh and also indicated that on missing of her husband, when she contacted Vimla and she visited her home, she gave conflicting versions.

7. After registration of the F.I.R., investigation commenced by the police, during the course of which, statements of the witnesses were recorded and appellant Manohar Lal Dethudia was arrested. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against appellant Manohar Lal Dethudia only for offence under Section 302 IPC.

8. The trial court framed charges against the accused under Section 302 IPC, which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its ca