KHETIA Vs. SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been preferred separately by two accused Khetia and Udairam who were jointly tried on a charge of murder under Sec. 302 B. P. C. They were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner under Sec. 302 of the Bikaner Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that the two accused had illicit connection with one Mt. Magi P.W. 2 which was resented by Kishna deceased and he had warned the appellants not to visit her and that in consequence, the appellants after consultation with Mt. Magi decided to remove the obstacle in their way by killing Kishna and that in pursuance of the said plot waylaid him while he was returning from his field on 1st October 1948. an hour after sunset. It was alleged that Kishna was riding on a camel and with him were his daughter Rewatri, aged about seven years, and two sons, aged about four and two years. While Kishna was pissing by the house of Nanda, Khetia is alleged to have hit him with the pole of a spear and felled him and thereafter, Udairam is alleged to have assaulted with an axe and Khetia with the spear. Rewatri PW -6 and her brothers also fell down from the camel and she ran to her mother Mt. Chena P. W. 4 and told her of what had happened to her father. Mt. Chena. came and found her husband Kishna lying injured on the spot. On query being made, Kishna told her that ?Khetia and Udairam had assaulted him. The same statement was made by Kishna to Adu P.W.1 and Dalu P. W. to when they came later. On the next morning Adu took Kishna to the Police Station Gairsar but just as the Police Station was in sight, Kishna expired. The report was lodged by Adu at about 2 p. m. The police after investigation, challaned both the accused under Sec. 302 of the Bikaner Penal Code to the court of City Magistrate, Bikaner who committed the accused to the Court of Session. The accused denied the charge but the trial resulted in their conviction and sentence as aforesaid. Both the accused have filed separate appeals as mentioned above.

(3.) It is urged by Mr. Balkishen on behalf of Udairam that the First Information Report Ex. P - -1 dated 2nd October 1948 lodged by Adu is spurious and unreliable as, according to the prosecution evidence itself, a report was written at the instance of Mt. Chena by one Pokardas and delivered at the police Station, Gairsar by one Moola and on receipt of that report, a police constable reached Norangdesar, where Kishna was injured, on the morning of the 2nd October. It was argued that it was after the arrival of the police constable that Adu took Kishna to Gairsar where he reached at 2 P.M. and lodged the report Ex. P - -1. Ranjitsingh L.C. P.W. 9 states that he was incharge of Police Station, Gairsar in October 1948 and he did not receive any report prior to that made by Adu on the 2nd October. He also denies that any Police constable left his Thana for Norangdesar on the night between 1st and 2nd October. Bakhtawarsing P. W. 8 states that he was Sub -Inspector, Gairsar but had been out in connection with certain enquiry and received information of this incident at Lakhasar on the 3rd October 1948. He denies the receipt of any report on behalf of Mt. Chena prior to that lodged by Adu.