HARI BUX Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge Sikar whereby the appellant has been convicted u/sec. 304 (II) IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years' RI with a fine of Rs. 200/- (in default, further one month's SI ).

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27. 5. 99 one Pokharram lodged a written report at PS Laxmangarh (Sikar) stating therein that he was called by his daughter Santosh who is married to Shrawan S/o Ganpat because at 7 PM there was scuffle in between Shrawan Kumar & his brother Haribux, and upon this information he went to Santosh's place where it was given out by her inter-alia that on that day at about 5 PM her husband Shrawan was beaten by his elder brother Haribux by inflicting blows with iron rod `jelly' on left side of his chest resulting into his death and his dead body had been lying in the field, and that the incident of beating was seen by Mevaram, Santosh and her mother in-law (mother of deceased Shrawan & appellant Haribux ). Upon aforesaid written report, a criminal case was registered at PS Laxmangarh for offence u/sec. 302 IPC. After completion of usual investigation, challan was filed against the appellant for the aforesaid offence & after committal proceedings, the appellant was tried for offence u/s. 302 IPC. During trial the appellant was charged for aforesaid offence to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as fourteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case and the appellant was examined u/s. 313 Cr. P. C. , during which he denied the prosecution allegation of committing murder of his brother (deceased) and he stated that he had gone to do his labour and so he was not present at the place of incident. He also stated that his daughter of two years age had given out that Santosh had murdered her own husband in a hot exchange during his drunken state. However, he did not adduce any evidence in defence. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court by impugned judgment convicted & sentenced the appellant as indicated above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) POKHARRAM (PW 9) who is father of eye witness Santosh (PW 2) and father in-law of deceased Shrawan has proved written report (Ex/p. 14 ). He deposed that house of his daughter Santosh is situated at a distance of two Kms from his village and so he reached there within 20 minutes upon having received telephonic message; and that on the basis of information given out by his daughter, he got written report (Ex/p. 14) and lodged it in the evening itself and whereupon crime was registered vide FIR (Ex. P/15 ). He also proved site plan (Ex. P. 5) of the place of incident so also inquest report (Ex. P. 2), which were prepared in his presence and which bear his signature as motbir witness thereto.