JAWAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-8-1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar convicting the appellant of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment to further undergo six months simple imprisonment.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 2-7-1995 at about 6.4.5 AM. PW-1 Mal Singh lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Matilirathan stating inter alia that on the preceding day i.e. on 1-7-1995 in the afternoon at about 3.00 PM appellant Jawand Singh visited his house and persuaded his son Angrej Singh to accompany him. In the night at about 11.00 PM PW-2 Makhan Singh and PW-3 Balwinder Singh brought Angrej Singh at the house in a tractor trolley. PW 2 Makhan Singh reported that appellant Jawand Singh dealt with kassi blow on the head of Angrej Singh on account of which he became unconscious. He alongwith Baiwinder Singh and Jaganandan Singh proceeded to take the injured to the hospital at Kesrisinghpur but he succumbed to the injuries on the way. It was also stated that appellant Jawand Singh had demanded money for liquor but deceased Angrej Singh refused to oblige him and for that reason appellant gave a kassiT blow on his head. On this information, police registered a case. Police visited the spot prepared the site plan, inquest report and send the dead body for post-mortem. After usual investigation, police laid chargesheet against the appellant for offence under Section 302 I.P.C.

(3.) The appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined eight witnesses. In statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. appellant denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. The trial court mainly relying on the testimony of two eye witnesses namely PW-2 Makhan Singh and PW-3 Balwinder Singh corroborated by the recovery of kassi and medical evidence found the charges levelled against the appellant proved. Accordingly the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner noticed above.