ISMILE KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having felt aggrieved from the judgment dated 20.4.1996, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, Camp Aklera, Ismile Khan has preferred this appeal under Sec. 374 Cr.PC., whereby the trial court has convicted him under Sec. 307, 326 and 324 I.RC. and sentenced to urdergo 10 year R.l. and a fine of Rs. 5000.00 under the first count, 10 year R.l. and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 under the second count, and 1 year R.l. and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00under the third court. It was directed that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently.

(2.) The matter relates to an occurrence which took place on 2.11.1993, at about 7 a.m. in village Chhan. The prosecution case is that Salim was taking milk from Jaldhar, when the accused went there, having an axe in his hand. He inflicted multiple injuries to Salim. The first information report of the occurrence, Ex.R 1 was lodged at 6.30 p.m., which was in the form of 'Parcha Bayan', wherein Salim stated that the accused had inflicted axe blow to his 1 head and other parts of the body in order to cause his death. The police inspected the site, interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused. The injuries of Salim, were examined by P.W. 5 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dube, who prepared the injury report Ex.P. 3. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Salim, P.W. 2 Hakila Bai, P.W. 3 Amin Khan, P.W. 4 Alam Khan, P.W. 5 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dube, P.W. 6 Sunat Bai, RW. 7 Anwar Khan, P.W. 8 Madan, P.W. 9 Mohd. Sharif and RW. 10 Bhanwar Singh. Accused in his statement did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Judge of the trial court held that the accused had caused simple and grievous injuries to Salim in an attempt to cause his death and, therefore, he convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

(3.) The contention of Mr. Sharma was that the trial court has committed error in placing reliance on the testimony of RW. 7 Anwarkhan and P.W. 6 Sunat Bai, who, according to him, were not present at the scene of occurrence. He further contended that the prosecution has not examined important witness Jaldar and, therefore, no reliance ought to have been placed on the testimony of Salim.