GAJE SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal directed against the judgment and conviction of the accused-appellant under sections 302, 326 and 324 I. P. C. , under sec. 302 I. P. C. accused-appellant has been sentenced to life imprison-ment and under section 326 I. P. C. 3 year's R. I. and under section 324 I. P. C. six months' R. I. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to this appeal are: Deceased Balaram was resi-dent of Bhakri. On the night intervening between 12th and 13. 06. 1976 he was sleeping at his house along with his son Amraram aged 5 years. His wife PW 7 Sarki was also sleeping along with her small daughter nearby. At the dead of night suddenly some one came armed with a sword and gave a fatal blow to deceased Balaram, as a result of which he died and that sword blow also injured Amraram. P. W. 7 Sarki immediately got up and cried for help. It is alleged that on that relevant time some 'jagaran' was going on in the temple of Hanu-manji and Birdaram, Joraram, Deeparam and Shankar heard sound of weeping. Therefore, they immediately went to the house of deceased Balaram and there Mst. Sarki P. W. 7 informed them of the incident. Birdaram P. W. 6 immediately filed the first information report at Police Station, Luni. Thereafter, Police took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the accused was appre-handed and a sword and one 'jooti' was recovered at his instance. After the close of the investigation, Police filed a challan against the accused. The accused was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions to stand trial under section 302 I. P. C. for causing the murder of deceased Balaram and under section 326, 324 I. P. C. for causing grievous hurt to Amraram. Learned Sessions Judge, after due trial, convicted the accused-appellant, as aforesaid, on the basis of the evidence of Mst. Sarki P. W. 7, the sole eye-witness of the incident. Aggrieved against this judgment and conviction, the accused has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) APART from this, another outstanding feature is that the first information report which was filed on 13. 06. 1976. at 3. 30 A. M. , the name of the accused was not mentioned. Only a bare impression was conveyed that he could be a son of Thakur of Kaga Nada. It is not mentioned that which of the son of Thakur of Kaga Nada was the person responsible for causing this fatal blow. As a matter of fact, the identity of the accused came to be disclosed during the investigation after 7 days. The very fact that identity of the accused was made known after 7 days itself shows that Mst. Sarki could not identify the accused at night and it was only by process of elimination, the accused was singled out. In this connection, it may also be mentioned that the brother of Mst. Sarki and the sons of Thakur of Kaga Nada had a criminal litigation and there was an active animosity between them. Therefore, this possibility also cannot ruled out that the accused might have been roped in out of this enmity between the parties. So far as the recoveries of sword and 'jooti' are concerned that has also not been connected with present crime.