KALIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a tine of Rs. 500.00, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (camp at Gangapur City) by his judgment dated 1-5-80.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Padam-pura. lodged a report in the police station, Todabheem that on 23-9-79, when he returned back from Jaipur to Padampura at 10 p.m , Nanga and Pancha informed him that Ghisa has been murdered in his field in which the crop of Bajra was standing. He has been killed by sharp edged weapon by inflicting injuries on his body and his body is still lying on the spot. The police thereafter, investigated the case. Postmortem examination of the dead body of Ghisa was conducted. The clothes found on the body of the deceased and the blood stained sand was sent for chemical examination. A challan was thereafter submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun, who after making the preliminary enquiry sent the case for trial to the Sessions Court. A charge was framed under section 302 against the accused-appellant, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined the witnesses in support of its case and the accused appellant did not produce any evidence in defence. The learned Sessions Judge mainly relied on the statement of PW. 4 Habuda and PW. 7 Smt. Mangi, the wife of the deceased, and recovery of sickle articles 1 under section 27 of the Evidence Act at the instance of the accused-appellant. On the basis of the afore-said evidence, the learned Sessions Judge held the accused guilty of committing the murder of deceased Ghisa and sentenced him as mentioned above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that according to the evidence produced by the prosecution, PW. 4 Habuda alone is said to be the eye witness of the commission of the crime. His statement according to the learned counsel is full of material contradictions, and the fact that he did not disclose the name of the accused to the widow and other residents of the village whom he met at 10 p m. on the alleged date of that murder and even did not disclose the name to the police on the next day, clearly shows an abnormal conduct and no reliance can be placed on the statement of such a witness. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following observation in Chanan Singe Vs. State of Haryana (AIR 1951 SC 1554) :-