The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as primarily relied upon uncorroborated extra-judicial confessions and inconsistent witness testimonies.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI CHIRANIA, J.

1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by appellant Krishanlal, the sole accused, against the judgment of trial court dated 18.4.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar Camp Suratgarh in Sessions Case No. 5/95 titled as State Vs. Krishanlal , whereby the appellant-accused was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC with imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six month’s simple imprisonment.

2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that a written report (Exhibit-P/1) was submitted by one Rewat Ram (PW-1) before the SHO, P.S. Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar on 16.3.1994 stating therein that his sister was married to one Ghadsiram. He further stated that his sister was not having cordial relationship with her son i.e. present accused-appellant. According to the complainant Rewat Ram (PW-2), his sister was murdered by the accused by throttling her neck. The written report (Exhibit-P/1) is reproduced hereunder :-

^^lsok esa

Jheku ,l0,p0vks0 lkgc

Fkkuk iqfyl jkft;k'kkj

Jheku th fuosnu gS fd esjh cgu 'kkUrh mez 50 lky ?kMlhjke [kkrh fuoklh 4 ,0ih0 ohjok.k dks fookgh gqbZ gS esjh cgu o esjk Hkkutk fdZ".k dh vkil esa ugha curh gS blfy, fdZ".k vyx gS fnukad 7-3-94 dks fdZ".k o esjh cgu 'kkUrh esjs xk¡o 'kknh es vkbZ rks 'kkUrh us crk;k dh fdZ".k esjs dks ekjus dh fQjkd esa gS rc eSaus o uUnjke us bls le>k;k fnukad 15-3-94 ds jkr ds 12 cts Vhdwjke tksrjke txnh'k fy[kes okys vk;s vkSj crk;k dh 'kkUrh dks fdZ".k us dUB ekSl dj ekj fn;kA djhc 4 cts lqcg 4 ,0ih0vk;s vkSj esjs lkFk uUnjke guqeku eq[kjke Hkkuhjke o Hkkyk jke vk;s rFkk ogk ij chjcy Vhdwjke txnh'k vkseizdk'k us crk;k fd 15-3-94 ds 11 cts 'kkUrh us [kkyk ij >kyk nsdj cqyk;k rFkk crk;k fd fdZ".k esjs yMds us Äjsyw ckr dks ysdj esjs dUB ekSl dj ejk le>dj Hkkx x;kA gks'k vkus ij vkt yksxks dks cqyk;k gSA rc mlus dgk laxhrs ys pyks rc jktkjke ds VsDVªj ij ij laxhrs ys x;s ogka MkDVj vtqZu dks fn[kkbZ rc 'kkUrh ds dUB ekSlus dh ckr crkus ij mlus dgk lqjrx<+ ys tkvksa rc txnh'k dh thi esa ysdj ineiqjk ekSM rd vk;s rks 'kkUrh ej xbZ rc yk'k dks ftlus crk;k fd eka dks dUB ekSldj ekj nh ekQh ns nks fdZ".k esjs HkkUts us esjh cgu 'kkUrh dh daB ekSl dj gR;k dh gS dkjokbZ dh tkosA**

3. On the aforesaid written report, police registered FIR No.29/94 at P.S. Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar on 16.3.1994 for offence under Section 302 IPC. The accused was arrested on 17.3.1994. On denial of charges, learned trial court conducted the trial, in which, from the prosecution side 22 witnesses were produced in evidence, namely, PW-1 Birbal Ram, PW-2 Arjun Ram, PW-3 Rewat Ram, PW-4 Nand Ram, PW-5 Mukh Ram, PW-6 Bhana Ram, PW-7 Hanuman, PW-8 Teeku Ram, PW-9 Jagdish, PW-10 Rajaram, PW-11 Om Prakash, PW-12 Balram, PW-13 Krishan Lal, PW-14 Ghadsi Ram (father of accused), PW-15 Madan Lal, PW-16 Jagdish, PW-17 Jote Ram, PW-18 Karan Singh, PW-19 Nihalchand, PW-20 Bimla, PW-21 Savitri and PW-22 Dr. Om Prakash Sharma.

4. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C., in which, he stated that he has been falsely implicated. In defence, statement of DW-1 Geeta Devi, wife of appellant was recorded.

5. The learned trial court after considering the evidence produced by the prosecution, passed judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.4.1996 whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and was punished with imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500/-, i