Honble SHARMA, J.–Irshad @ Risal, the appellant herein, has impugned the judgment dated January 30, 2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kishangarh (Ajmer), whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2). It is the prosecution case that the appellant personated himself as Rajendra Singh and came to the house of Rupendra Singh (since deceased). Rupendra Singh believed that Rajendra Singh was the brother of his wife Rajesh Kanwar and took him on scooter to the house of his cousin brother Prahlad Singh. Appellant pretended to go to Jammu but on the pretext of stomach pain he remained in the house of Prahlad Singh and thereafter went to Bus-stand. In the Bus-stand around 4.15 AM the appellant forced Rupendra Singh to go to Marble factory in search of his wrist watch. Rupendra Singh and the appellant together left the bus- stand on scooter and after about three hours dead body of Rupendra Singh was found lying near the small bridge of R.K. Road. Prahlad Singh lodged written report on May 17, 1999 at Police Station Madanganj where case under Section 302, 120B and 109 IPC was registered against Rajendra Singh and investigation commenced. The appellant and Rajesh Kanwar wife of the deceased were arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kishangarh, who discharged Rajesh Kanwar of all the charges. The appellant who was charged under Section 302 IPC, denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 26 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr.PC., the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3). Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently assailed the findings of learned trial Judge and made following submissions:-

(i) The trial Court failed to consider that identification proceedings do not contain stipulation to the effect that persons having similar hair style were mixed. The Magistrate who conducted identification proceedings was not examined and the identification proceedings could not be taken into consideration. The identification proceedings were conducted on June 17, 1999 whereas the appellant was arrested on June 5, 1999 and he was not kept Baparda (with covered face). Prior to identification the appellant was taken to the place of recovery of knife and the place of alleged incident. The memos Ex. P. 23 and Ex. P. 3 did not bear this note that the face of the appellant was covered.

(ii) The alleged recovery of knife was farce and it could not be established that blood on recovered knife was of the deceased.

(iii) The appellant was not named in the FIR. The FIR was registered against Rajendra Singh and no justifiable reason is available on record for his inclusion at later stage.

(4). Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned findings and urged that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced.

(5). We have pondered over the submissions and with the assistance of learned counsel scanned the record.

(6). Factual situation emerges from the material on record may be summarized thus:-

(i) The appellant was arrested on June 5, 1999 and was searched in the office of Circle Inspector situated in court compound. Arrest memo and search memos Ex. P. 18 and Ex. P. 19 were drawn.

(ii) On June 9, 1999 the appellant was taken to the site from where dead body was recovered and later on to the place from where recovery of knife was effected. Memos Ex. P. 16 and Ex. P. 17 were drawn.

(iii) On June 10, 1999 the appellant was taken to Surajpura (Jaipur) to recovery his own shirt and letters. Memos Ex. P. 23 and Ex. P. 24 were drawn.

(iv) None of the aforequoted memos contain st

Click Here to Read the rest of this document