BRIJMOHAN GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for causing death of his farther-in-law Hariwan at about 3.00 P.M. on 5-10-1982 in a locality known as Gwalitoli in Hoshangabad.

(2.) The finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge who tried the appellant is that at 3.00 P.M. on the fateful day the appellant came to the house of the deceased, called him outside, took him to a nearby Neem tree and then gave a stab blow on the left side of his chest, cutting a rib and big vessels resulting in excessive bleeding causing shock and then ultimate death Dehati Nalishi Ex. P. 1) was recorded on information from Rameshwan (P.W. 1), the brother of the deceased. Constable Ramawatar (P.W. 9) chased and caught hold of the appellant who was captured in a room on a railway platform He was then taken into custody and from him knife and clothes were seized. The Cycle was seized from the spot and so also the shoes. They were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and then to Serologist who both opined that the blood-stains found on these articles were of human blood. Report of Forensic Science Laboratory is Ex P-18 and that of the Serologist is Ex P-20. Seizure memos are Ex. P-2, Ex P-3 and Ex. P-S. The post morten report by Dr. N. K. Pandey (P.W. 7) is Ex. P. 10-A showing the extent of injury and containing an opinion that the injury was ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death. As many as five witnesses are examined. Their testimony has been accepted.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defence first submitted in support of this appeal that the Dehati Nalishi (Ex P1) and F.I.R. (Ex. P-lA) said to be recorded at 3.15 and 3.30 P. M. respectively are shrouded with suspicion in view of the statement of Ramawatar (P.W. 1) and Ramawatar (P.W. 9). There does appear to be some confusion prima-facie but then if closely scrutinised there does not seem to be much substance in this contention. According to Rameshwan (P.W.1) he gave the information pursuant to which Ex. P-i, Dehati Nalishi was recorded at the police station. However, according to -Ramawatar (P.W. 9) and R.G. Shrivastava, S I. (P.W. 11), the same was recorded only on the spot, what we really find is that the information was given on the spot where after they all proceeded to the police station and there from to the hospital. It is under these circumstances that Rameshwan (P.W. 1) stated that he made the report at the police station. This all happened in a quick succession and within such a short time. Such variation in deposition of witnesses recorded after considerable passage of time is possible. Nothing, therefore, turns upon this aspect of the matter, and we are not prepared to accept this contention that all this is made up affair and the appellants name has been inserted in these reports only because the assailant could not be traced. The immediate lodging of the report does not admit of any such contention. This contention is, therefore, rejected.