Point of law : It was desirable for the prosecution to produce the Investigating Officer at the trial notwithstanding the fact that various documents which were to be proved by the Investigating Officer were accepted by the defence as genuine documents and were not disputed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Neelam Giri and Sri Himanshu Giri learned counsels for the appellant Rajpal Singh, Sri Kunwar Ajay Singh learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of appellants Manoj and Munna Ram @ Baba in the connected appeals and Sri Rajan Prasad Mishra learned A.G.A for the State respondents.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 08.05.1997 passed by the IIIrd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in S.T. No.104 of 1992 and S.T. No. 417 of 1992 arising out of Case Crime No.191 of 1991 under Section 302, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat whereby three accused/appellants namely Manoj, Rajpal Singh and Munna Ram @ Baba have been convicted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 & 120-B IPC and punished for life imprisonment. The accused/appellants have also been convicted under Section 201 IPC and punished for additional five years rigorous imprisonment. Both the punishments are to run concurrently.

3. The first information report is in the nature of a written report submitted by Jeet Singh (P.W.-1) on 27.12.1991 at about 10.30 A.M. reporting that the dead body of his brother Vijay Pal Singh was found on the Chakroad near the field of Shambhu Pandit hidden in a 'paddy Payar'. It was stated therein that the deceased Vijay Pal Singh used to work in Rasoolabad and to come back daily from the workplace in the evening. On 23.12.1991, when he did not return home, he was looked after everywhere. At the time of search, the first informant came to know that the deceased had consumed liquor with some people on 23.12.1991 near the Usri Nursery and after that he had never been seen. The blood stained body cloth ¼vaxksNk½ of the deceased was found on the Chak road near the field of Shambhu Pandit and besides that the 'Paddy Payar' was lying. Being suspicious, when 'Paddy Payar' was turned over, dead body of Vijay Pal Singh was found hidden in it. The injuries on the body of the deceased seem to have been caused by an object like Axe ¼dqYgkM+h½.

4. On the said report, the police had reached the spot, recovered blood stained and plain earth on 27.12.1991. The inquest was conducted on the same day which commenced at about 11.15 AM and concluded at about 12.20 PM. The postmortem was conducted on 28.12.1991 at about 01.00 PM. The injuries found on the person of the deceased were lacerated wounds on the forehead 6 cm x 2 cm left upper arm, chin, elbow and multiple abrasions on whole of the body. The proximate time of death was reported about 4-5 days and the cause of death was hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries.

5. At the outset, we may note that the genuineness of the police papers namely the chik report, the recovery memo of blood stained and plain earth, inquest report, the recovery memo of blood stained clothes of the deceased, the charge sheet as also the postmortem report was admitted by the defence and an endorsement to that can be found on the said documents. The formal proof of these documents was, thus, dispensed with and they were exhibited as Exhibit Ka-6, Exhibit Ka-10, Exhibit Ka-16, Exhibit Ka-17, Exhibit Ka-18, and Exhibit Ka19; respectively.

6. Apart from the above papers, other documentary evidences on record are two written reports; one given by Laakhan Singh son of Mulayam Singh and another allegedly given by Chatrapal Singh son of Jaahar Singh as also a recovery memo dated 09.01.1992. The genuineness of these documents was not admitted by the defence and they are sought to be proved by the prosecution witnesses in their oral testimony. The Investigating Officer of the case and other formal witnesses had not entered in the witness box and the prosecution sought to prove its case by five witnesses of fact.

7. The charges were framed against the accused persons namely Manoj and Rajpal under Section 302 read with 34 IPC Section 201 IPC and Section 120-B IPC, whereas by a separate order, charge had been framed against the appellant Munna Ram @ Bab