STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. GURU DAYAL @ CHHOTU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Rajasthan, being aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 17.9.1981 passed by Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 68/81 has preferred this appeal. The trial Court vide its impugned judgment has acquitted the accused respondent from the charge of the offence under Sec. 302 IPC. The facts of the case in nut shell are that Ex. P/6, written report, at Police Station Masuda, was lodged by P.W./6 Jaman Lal, the brother of deceased Manohar on 7.5.81 wherein it was alleged that on 4.5.81 his brother Manohar Lal, who was coming to his house and when he reached near Darmai Tank in village Jamola, the accused Gurudayal @ Chootu stopped him and inflicted lathi blow on his head. This incident has been seen by Chhitar S/o Hazari and Bheema S/o Mala Rawat. It was also alleged that due to said injury Manohar became unconscious and Chhitar and Bheema informed him about this; that his brother Manohar died on 6.5.81, therefore, the case be registered. On the basis of above report, FIR No. 25/81 (Ex. P/7) was registered under Sec. 302 IPC and investigation commenced. As per post mortem report conducted by P.W./1 Dr. Vasudev, two injuries were found on the person of deceased. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against accused respondent under Sec. 302 IPC. The case was committed for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Ajmer. The trial Court framed charge against the accused for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC, which was denied by him and he claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.W./1 to P.W./15. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C.; no defence evidence was led on behalf of the accused. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties, acquitted the respondent.

(2.) The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor is that this is a case wherein the prosecution examined eye witness namely Chhitar (P.W./2) and Bheema (P.W./3) and both of them stated that the accused inflicted a lathi (blunt object) blow on the person of deceased which proved to be fatal but still the trial Court acquitted him, therefore, this is a fit case wherein this Court should interfere in the order of acquittal and accused be punished.

(3.) No one is present on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice, therefore, we could not get any assistance from the defence side. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the State and we have ourselves minutely examined the impugned judgment as well as record of the trial Court.