The trial Courts judgment of companyviction sentence was maintained.
The dying declaration was found to be reliable.
After companypletion of the investigation, the police filed a challan against both the accused appellants.
Background facts in a nutshell are as under On 22.8.1998 a Parcha Bayan Ex.
The injured was examined in the night itself at about 3 a.m. at Primary Health Centre, Chechat by Dr. Girish Chand PW 1 .
690 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP Crl.
On the basis of this Parcha Bayan Police registered a case for offences under Sections 448, 307, 323 and 34 IPC.
Subsequently, FIR No.125/1998 Ex.
He told him that he should remove the stones.
Subsequently in the night at about 2 a.m. when he was sleeping in his house, accused Sunderlal inflicted a blow on his head by Gandasi with the intention to kill him and also inflicted injuries on his hand.
He also stated that accused Laxmi Narain also inflicted injuries on his legs.
P.22 was registered on 22.8.1998 itself.
P20 of injured Heeralal hereinafter referred to as the deceased was recorded by the SHO, Police Station, Chechat, Distt.
4589 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The I.O. prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code The accused persons were arrested and on the basis of their information, the weapons i.e. gandasi and lathi were recovered.
The injured succumbed to the injuries at about 7 a.m. His post mortem was companyducted on 22.8.1998 itself by Dr. Ashok Mundara W.22 .
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
The High Court found the judgment of the trial Court to be in order and dismissed the appeal.
Each of the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ each with default stipulation.
Kota, wherein it was stated that accused appellant Sunderlal told him as to why he has been abused.
When he cried Chaturbhuj, Deva, Rameshwar came but both the accused appellants ran away.
In this appeal judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court is the subject matter of challenge.
The appellant was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC , while the companyaccused Laxmi Narain was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Both the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
The trial Court found the evidence to be companyent and credible.
