However, the said witness had turned hostile at the time of the recording of the evidence.
It was a routine affair for the deceased to return home in and around 800 p.m. It is when the deceased did number return home within the anticipated time, the deceaseds father, the informant in this case had gone in search of the deceased.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.662 of 2003, dated 24.02.2006.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has reversed the findings and the companyclusion reached by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No.70 of 2001 dated 13.09.2002.
In the Trial, the Prosecution had examined nearly 14 witnesses in support of its case and the defence had number examined any witnesses.
On the information so lodged by the informant and after companypletion of the investigation, a charge sheet had been filed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the IPC for short .
Since the accused did number plead guilty, the trial had companymenced before the learned Sessions Judge after companymittal of the case by the learned Magistrate.
The two star witnesses according to the prosecution are, one Dinesh PW 10 and Mahesh PW 13 .
The facts in brief are The accused Sanjay is a distant relative of the deceased who was aged about 10 years at the relevant date of the incident.
However, the dead body was recovered only on the next date.
The accused, on the other hand, was aged about 24 years.
While searching, the informant met P.W.10 who had informed him that he saw the deceased going along with the accused person.
According to the prosecution, P.W.10 had seen the deceased going along with the accused person.
On 16.10.2000, the deceased had gone near the cinema hall for the purpose of selling biscuits.
P.W.13, also speaks to the effect that he saw the deceased talking to the accused person.
The other witness, namely, Nilam P.W.6 , the sister in law of the accused in her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had stated that the accused had companyfessed to the companymission of crime.
Being aggrieved by the companyviction and sentence so passed by the Trial Court, the accused had filed an appeal before the High Court.
