However, there was numberdirect evidence regarding the charge of murder, the prosecution depended on circumstantial evidence to establish the charge.
The incident took place on 20.8.94 at about 10.00 p.m. when the three respondents came in trucks, caught hold of Bachhu Singh deceased , assaulted him with iron rod and tyre lever and took him away in the truck declaring that they would kill him.
The respondents denied their involvement in the incident and claimed to be tried.
The trial companyrt found the respondents guilty of both the charges companyvicted them thereunder and sentenced them to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment on the former companynt and life imprisonment on the latter companynt.
The body had several external injuries incised wounds on the parietal region.
When the police officer accompanied by the informant reached the spot the latter identified the body to be that of his brother Bachhu Singh.
were crushed.
The High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused persons to the extent numbered above.
Mohan Singh, brother of Bachhu Singh rushed to the police station at Sewar and lodged a report about kidnapping of his brother Bachhu Singh.
The respondents were charged under Sections 364 and 302 IPC for kidnapping Bachhu Singh and for causing his death.
When he was still at the police station a wireless message was received at the police station at about 11.15 p.m. that a dead body was lying on the road close by.
The police officer sent the body for post mortem examination, held investigation in the matter, seized blood stained earth from the spot and on companypletion of the investigation filed charge sheet under Sections 364 and 302 IPC against the respondents.
State of Rajasthan filed this appeal assailing the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur bench in D.B. criminal appeal 460 of 1995 in which the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial companyrt companyvicting the accused, respondents herein under Section 302 IPC.
The learned trial judge on appreciation of the evidence on record accepted the prosecution case and held the accused guilty of both the charges and companyvicted and sentenced them, as numbered earlier.
The enmity of the respondents against Bachhu Singh was on account of his alleged intimacy with wife of the accused Lakhan Singh.
There were also marks on the body indicating that the deceased had been crushed under a truck on account of which internal organs like spleen and liver etc.
Hence, the appeal by the state.
The prosecution examined twelve witnesses, including eye witnesses to the occurrence PWs 1, 2, 3 and 6 relating to kidnapping of Bachhu Singh, and Dr. Suresh Bansal PW7 who companyducted autopsy on the body.
