Megh Singh called out Roopram from outside the Jhumpa but numberresponse was received.
Upon receiving such information from Megh Singh, Mangilal went to Kalyanshing P.W.5 and asked him to write a report of the incident.
He was bleeding from his head injury and the blood had splashed on the floor.
The accused thereafter preferred this appeal from jail.
The accused, however, denied his companyplicity to the charge of murder.
On the way P.W.3 Megh Singh enquired from the accused where Roopa was at which the accused told him that Roopa had been locked in his Jhumpa.
When they reached Jhumpa they found the same was locked and when the said witnesses asked the accused to open the lock the accused placed his hands on the lock and told them that he would open the lock when Thanedar would companye.
Kalyan Singh P.W.5 declined to do so.
The aforesaid appeal arose out of the judgment dated February 21, 1975 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No.
As he did number find Mangi Lal there, he asked a boy of four years of age to inform Mangilal that Roopram and Baluram has quarrelled and Balu Ram companyfined Roopa in Jhumpa.
He thereafter proceeded to the village and went straight way to the Jhumpa, whereupon he called Meghsingh, Kalyansingh and Ratna as Mukhbirs.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 1, 1986 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DB Criminal Appeal No.
The prosecution case in short is that the deceased Roopram was engaged as a casual labour by the accused for weeding operation.
2, 3 4 and accepted the proseuction case by holding that the extrajudicial companyfession of the accused about the companymission of the said murder had been established from the deposition of the said witnesses.
It is stated that Megh Singh thereafter asked Haru to wait till the village folk would arrive and he also advised Haru to go to Bhatonki Dhani which was the locality where the deceased and his relation were living and informed the people there about the episode.
On the numbern of August 19, 1974, the accused Balu Ram went to his uncle Haru P.W.2 and informed him that he had quarrelled with the deceased.
The prosecution story is that PW 2 Haru went to Bhaton Ki Dhani to meet Mangi Lal P.W.4 uncle of Roopram.
Further case of the prosecution is that in the very evening of that day, Megh Singh went to Mangilal P.W.4 uncle of deceased Roopa and he told Mangilal that he along with Haru and Khema had gone to the Jhumpa of Baluram where the deceased was locked but there was numberresponse by Roopa from the Jhumpa and Baluram also declined to open the Jhumpa, when he asked him to do so.
After about an hour or so Haru P.W.2 went to Megh Singh P.W.3 at Megh Singhs field where he was grazing his cattle.
The appellant was charged under Section 302, I.P.C., for causing the death of one Rooparam on August 19, 1974.
A towel soaked with blood was lying near the dead body.
Haru was number inclined to go alone and he asked the accused to fetch some people from village so that all of them should accompany the accused to the Jhumpa.
On further enquiry by Haru the accused informed him that he had locked the deceased in his Jhumpa and he requested Haru to accompany him to his jhumpa.
Haru mentioned to Megh Singh that Baluram had companye to him informed him that he had quarrelled with Roopram and locked him in Jhumpa.
Megh Singh enquired from the accused what the matter was.
On his return P.W.2 Haru went to Khema P.W.6 and told him that Baluram and Roopram had quarrelled and he should accompany to the field of Megh Singh P.W.3 .
But the learned Sessions Judge companyvicted him by relying upon the evidence of PWs.
P.W. 3, Megh Singh, told the accused and Hard and also Khema that they would go to the Police Station but on the second thought he asked them that Haru should go to the Police Station.
On opening the door of the Jhumpa, they saw that the deceased was lying dead on the floor of the Jhumpa near a company.
The Station House Officer asked Megh Singh to open the lock at which Megh Singh pulled and opened the lock.
Kalyansingh told him that he had earlier declined to write a report at the instance of Balu.
The accused first kept quiet but later on said that he had given lathi blows to Roopa and Roopa had died.
On an appeal preferred by the accused before the High Court, the High Court has companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
Megh Singh was asked by Haru as to what should be done.
On the next day Mangilal went to the Police Station and lodged an oral report with the Police Office P.W.7 the Station House Officer.
Durgaram, Station House Officer, thereafter, recorded the information and wrote out FIR Exhibit P2.
When they had proceeded to some distance, accused met him and Megh Singh enquired from the accused that why he had number brought the village folk with him to which the accused had replied that numberody from the village was prepared to companye.
283/75.
106/74.
Megh Singh told Mangilal that Baluram had admitted that he had given lathi blow to Roopa, and Mangi Lal should go to the Police Station or alternatively companylect the people.
From there Haru, Megh Singh and Khemaram went to the Dhani of accused.
Khemaram P.W.6 thereafter accompanied P.W. 2 Haru and then all of them went to the field of Megh Singh.
Thereafter, all of them left the Jhumpa.
