The accused was arrested and the prosecution companymenced.
The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal.
Stand of the appellant was that the order of companyviction is unsustainable in law as companyclusion of guilt is number supported by the evidence on record.
An appeal was filed before the High Court.
Trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of Om Prakash PW 1 and found his evidence to be companyent and clear and recorded companyviction and sentence as indicated above.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows First Information Report was lodged in the Police Station, Khinvsar on 14.5.1992 by one Nenuram, stating that at about 11.00 a.m., on that day, he heard that accused Om Prakash has killed Shivpyari, his wife hereinafter referred to as the deceased , due to old quarrel.
The investigation was companyducted.
Accused filed an appeal questioning his companyviction and sentence imposed.
The prosecution examined 22 witnesses during the trial to prove its case alongwith certain documents which were duly proved.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. State of Rajasthan is in appeal against the judgment of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur.
Respondent faced trial for alleged companymission of offence punishable under Section under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life by learned Additional Sessions Judge Nagaur.
