KHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was arraigned before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Deeg, for having committed murder of his own brother Harbans Singh. The learned trial Judge vide judgment dated March 28, 2000, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1000/ -, in default to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution story is woven like this. Kehar Singh, who is son of the deceased, submitted a written report Ex.P.8, with the Police Station, Sikri, on October 14, 1997, at 7 p.m. with the averments that there was animosity between his father Harbans Singh and his uncle Khajan Singh over a Neem tree. On October 10, 1997, around 6 p.m. when his father was going to Gurudwara for worship, Khajan Singh started abusing him near the house of Santok Singh. Then, with the intention of killing him, Khajan Singh struck the first blow with knife on the right side of the chest, the second blow on the face and nose and third blow on the stomach. Because of the third blow, the intestines came out. After hearing hue and cry of his father, Kehar Singh ran out. Darshan Singh, Pahalwan Singh and others looked after his father. In the meanwhile Khajan Singh ray away with knife. Then Kehar Singh and others took his father to hospital and got him admitted. During the course of treatment, his father succumbed to injuries. Post Mortem and other police inquiries were carried out in Alwar. After that he brought the dead body in village and cremated and after performing 'Tiya' ceremony, the report was instituted with some delay. On the basis of the said report, formal F.I.R. bearing No.120/97 (Ex.P.93 was chalked under Section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. The site was inspected. Site plan Ex. P.7, was drawn on October 13, 1995. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Appellant was arrested and on completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deed. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents and three articles. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant claimed innocence. Two witnesses in defence, however, were examined. The learned trial Court on hearing the final submission convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated here -in -above.

(3.) THE learned trial Court while convicting and sentencing the appellant, was of the view that the delay of four days, in lodging the F.I.R. was well explained, the presence of the eye - witnesses was natural and the knife, which was used in commission of the crime, was recovered at the instance of the appellant. The testimony of defence witnesses was rejected.