He went to the Hanumangarh police station and gave information to PW 10 Govindram, the Sub Inspector of Police.
He prepared the site plan and took photographs of the dead body and they were sent for post mortem examination.
The circumstantial evidence on which the companyrt placed reliance was that the appellant was last seen with the deceased and that the appellant had given extra judicial companyfession to PW 5, Gian Chand.
P 40 the F.S.L. Report showed the presence of blood stains on the knife as well as on the pants and shirts of the appellant allegedly worn by him at the time of incident.
Subhash told him that he the appellant would be going to Hanumangarh as their friend, Vikram had invited them.
PW 2, Dr. Narendra Godara, companyducted the post mortem examination and found as many as 24 incised injuries on the dead body.
There was numberdirect evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant.
PW 5 later returned to Sadul Sahar and told this fact to his brother, Satish Kumar.
The appellant on interrogation gave statement to the effect that he had companycealed a knife.
Both PW 7 and PW3 were extensively cross examined and the Sessions Court as well as the High Court placed reliance on their testimony.
On the basis of the information given by PW 8, a case was registered under Section 302 IPC and PW 10 immediately visited the place where the dead body had been found.
On 23.6.1992, at about 8.30 P.M., the appellant was arrested and the companyaccused was arrested on the next day.
The companynsel for the appellant seriously challenged the evidence of PW 5 and companytended that PW 5 was number holding any high position as to render any help to the appellant to save him from the predicament and to such a person, the appellant would number have made any companyfession.
PW 1 also stated that on receiving this information from PW 5, he went to the house of the appellant and he was number found there and on the next morning he again went to the appellants house and questioned the appellant.
Both of them were found guilty by the Sessions Court.
PW 10 recovered the knife from a pit and prepared a recovery report.
They filed separate appeals before the High Court of Rajasthan.
PW 7 was known to deceased, Subhash.
The Division Bench of the High Court companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence of the present appellant, Pradeep Singh.
The judgment of the Division Bench is challenged before us.
The appellant looked sad and on seeing PW 5, the appellant told him that he had killed Subhash with a knife.
As regards the extra judicial companyfession, PW 5 Gian Chand stated that he had gone to Ganganagar on 22.6.1992 and he saw the appellant, Pradeep Singh.
The recovery of blood stained knife, pants and shirts was also taken as a serious incriminating evidence against the appellant.
The pants and shirts worn by the appellant were also recovered by the police and Exh.
Moreover, the evidence of Gian Chand is further companyroborated by PW 1, who stated that Gian Chand had met him and told about the extra judicial companyfession made by the appellant to him.
The prosecution case is that on 22.6.1992 at about 8 A.M., PW 8 Maniram, a head companystable attached to the Hanumangarh police station, saw the dead body of a young person near Shiv Mandir cinema.
PW 7 Dinesh Kumar saw the deceased and the appellant at the Sadul Sahar bus stand on 21.6.1992.
The companyrt relied on the circumstantial evidence.
He also found that the internal organs of the deceased were punctured by incised injuries.
G. BALAKRISHNAN The appellant, Pradeep Singh was tried along with another companyaccused, Vikram Singh, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
