BANWARI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by uxoricide is directed against the judgment dated 3-4/8/1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which he has convicted him for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) ON 7. 7. 1993 at about 3. 30 PM, one Babu Lal lodged a written report, Ex. P. 3 at Police Station, Mansarovar, Jaipur stating therein that the accused appellant has murdered his wife Smt. Narbada by inflicting knife blows and his grand daughter Kumari Laxmi aged 12 years informed him about the incident and on being informed by her he himself saw Smt. Narbada lying in a dead condition out side the house No. 115/103 having injuries on her abdomen. The Police registered a case No. 110/93 for offence under Sec. 302 IPC vide FIR No. ,ex. P. 10 and proceeded to investigate the case. During investigation, the police inspected the site and prepared site plan Ex. P. 2. He collected sample of control soil and blood smeared soil from the place of incident vide Ex. P. 4 and P5, respectively. The Police arrested accused Banwari Lal vide arrest memo Ex. P. 9 and took in possession his shirt which he was wearing and one bag containing a shirt vide Ex. P. 6 and P. 7 respectively. The police also recovered a knife on the information of accused Ex. P. 11, vide recovery memo Ex. P. 8. The site plan of the place from where knife was recovered is Ex. P. 8-A. The Investigating Officer prepared Panchayatnama of the dead body of deceased Narbada, which is Ex. P. 1. The Medical Jurist conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Narbada vide his report Ex. P. 12. The accused was also examined for his injuries and his injury report is Ex. D. 1.

(3.) IN assailing the conviction, the learned counsel for the accused appellant has argued that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the findings arrived at by the learned trial court are based on misreading of the material evidence on record. He further argued that PW 3 Kumari Laxmi is the only eye witness. She has given the statement as a tutored witness and the learned trial court has seriously erred in relying on her statement. He also submitted that the recovery of knife is also suspicious and that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries found on the body of accused appellant. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that from the evidence and material on record, the prosecution has not been able to prove guilt against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, he deserves to be acquitted.