335 305 of 1999 allowing the appeals preferred by the respondents herein from the judgment of companyviction and sentence dated 29.4.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hindon City in Sessions Case No.9/1998.
The statements of the so called eye witnesses were also recorded after a few days in respect whereof the explanation of the investigating officer had number been accepted by the High Court.
Yadram P.W.4 in his first information alleged that when the deceased had gone to the field to cultivate crop of millet, two three persons came from behind and fled away after causing cutting injuries on him.
Admittedly, however, he was arrested on 7.11.1997 i.e. after a period of about 1 1/2 months.
Many other persons working in their fields arrived at the place of occurrence and by that time the accused persons fled away.
If his deposition and depositions of other witnesses on the said allegation were to be believed, Sarwan was brought to the house of the deceased and kept tied there.
The occurrence took place on 29.9.1997 at about 9 a.m. The first informant Yadram P.W. 4 lodged the First Information Report as regards murder of Sheodan by Kallu s o Harbhan and Sharvan s o Malua which was recorded at about 11.45 a.m. on the same day.
It, however, appears from the judgment passed by the Courts below that apart from Yadram P.W.4 ,Govind W.5 nephew of the deceased, Sukhi P.W.15 wife of the decased and Chandulal W.16 were eye witnesses.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dated 1.11.2001 in Criminal Appeal Nos.
Learned Sessions Judge in his judgment appears to have laid emphasis on the fact that respondent No.1 herein, admitted in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he had in fact been caught by the villagers but having been found by them to be innocent he was let off.
The learned Sessions Judge also did number believe the entire prosecution case.
P.C. to arrive at a companyclusion that the statement made by Chandulal P.W.16 that he apprehended respondent No.1 at the spot stood companyroborated, the High Court on the other hand did number agree to the said findings opining that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that respondent No.1 was caught at the spot.
More importantly Chandulal P.W.16 came out with a story that respondent No.1 was caught at the spot .
The homicidal nature of the death of the said Sheodan is number in dispute.
Their names, however, were number disclosed in the First Information Report.
Those whose names have been mentioned in the First Information Report,namely, Babulal, Chuttan, Vishram, and Sugan who examined themselves as P.W.14,P.W 7 and P.W.13, admittedly, did number witness the actual assault by the accused on the deceased.
The purported blood stained weapons were number sent for chemical examination.
Allegedly, he reached the place of occurrence from his own field after hearing sound of 1 Sheodan, Kallu and Sarwan.
Whereas the learned Sessions Judge had relied upon that part of the statement made by the respondent No.1 in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.
The prosecution witnesses further alleged that the Daranti which was the weapon of assault was kept at the house of the deceased.
The accused who were named in the First Information Report were said to have been in possession of Daranti scythe and axe in their hands.
