MOHANLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, by his judgment, dated May 22, 19b9, convicted the accused Mohanlal, son of Lachhmana Ram Jat, resident of Nabipura, aged about 17 years, under sec 302, I P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine Rs. 501/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for five months. By the same judgment the other accused Harlal has been acquitted of the offence under sec. 302. read with sec. 34, I. P. G. Mohanlal having grievance against that verdict has taken the present appeal.

(3.) SHEOBUX, P. W. 8, has deposed that when he reached near Gopalji's house, he saw Mohan striking "gupti" blow to Prahlad below his ribs. After sometime Mohan gave another "gupti" blow to Prahlad. Mohan ran away towards his house, with the "gupti". In the cross-examination the witness admits that he did not chase Mohan and Harlal. The witness was confronted with his statement, recorded by the committing court, Ex D. 2, at portion marked A to B, wherein he had stated that Mohan had given one "gupti" blow to Prahlad, when he was at some distance and that blow had fallen on his left rib. The other blow had been inflicted when he had reached near him. There is no significant contradiction in the above statement vis a vis the statement made before the trial court. He was further confronted with his police statement Ex. D. 4, at portion marked A to B, wherein he had said that Gorkharam had come and he caught hold of the hand of the accused and held his "gupti" and even then he had stabbed Prahlad with a "gupti". Here also there is no contradiction worth the name. The trial court disbelieved the testimony of this witness on the ground that he did nothing after the occurrence and that this is an unnatural conduct and that there are some material inconsistencies in his statement. We have carefully looked into the statement of SHEOBUX and we find therein no substantial contradictions. SHEOBUX has categorically stated that at site of the occurrence, as a result thereof 5 to 10 persons arrived at the place, where Prahlad was lying. In this context, it cannot be said that SHEOBUX remained reticent after the occurrence. He could not have taken more effective step than to raise pandemonium inviting the people to intervene in the matter. The grounds on which the evidence of SHEOBUX has been condemned are assumptive, having no real existence.