(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26. 2. 1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dungarpur convicting the appellant of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment to further undergo one years rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that PW-7 Kaliya lodged a First Information Report Exhibit P-11 on 19. 7. 1996 at Police Station Varda stating inter alia that in the evening of 18. 7. 1996 his neighbour appellant Nana was cutting "thor boundary". The appellant gave 2-3 kulhari blows on the head of Phula as he objected his act of "cutting "thor boundary" of his house. The informant also stated that the incident was witnessed by his grandson Maniya and granddaughter Jassa. He also stated that Phula was taken to the hospital by Bhuri, Raman, Raghu etc. He succumbed to the injuries on the way. On this information, police registered a case for offence under Section 302 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. Police laid chargesheet against the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC.
(3.) PW-3 Ramanlal has stated that deceased Phula was his uncle's son. He stated that hearing the out cries of ladies, he reached to the spot. He further stated that Nana gave a kulhari blow on the head of Phula on account of which he fell down. He also stated that the wife of Phula was trying to rescue her husband. He further stated that Nana gave a kulhari blow to Narbada also. The criticism against this witness is that his name does not find place in the First Information Report and further that his part of statement that an injury was inflicted by Nana as well to Mst. Narbada does not find corroboration from any other material witnesses. Even Mst. Narbada has not stated that she tried to rescue her husband and while doing so, any injury was caused to her by Nana. Thus, in our opinion, he is a planted witness. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness.