NAVEEN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This D.B. Cr. Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Sec. 374 (2) CrPC against the judgment dated 4.11.20216 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kherwada, Distt. Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 18/2016 (25/2012), whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000.00; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Facts of the case are that on 5/2/2012, the complainant PW-1 Kamla submitted a written report (Ex.-P/l) at Police Station, Pahada, Udaipur mentioning therein that on 4/2/2012 her father and other family members had gone to Amjhera Mehman. In the evening at about 6.00 PM, she and her mother Shanta were at the house. In front of the house, her uncle Naveen, Pintu, Soma, Dinesh, Chaina were talking loudly and quarreling with each other. Suddenly the complainant and her mother saw that quarrel was taking place with Kanti Lal (father of the complainant) and beating was likely to be given to him. The complainant and her mother rushed there. When complainant's mother reached there, Naveen gave a knife blow aside her under the arm, due to which she fell down and blood oozed. On causing a knife blow by Naveen to Shanta, all persons fled away. When she made hue and cry, her father Kanti came there and after some time, her mother died. The complainant's father caught hold the hand of Pushpa (wife of Pratap) and for this reason, scuffle and hot talks took place. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the police registered FIR No. 25/2012 (Ex.-P/27) and investigated the matter. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Thereafter trial was conducted and after completion of trial, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant, as indicated above. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) At the very out-set, learned counsel for the accused appellant has restricted his prayer and submits that that Pintu caught hold the hand of Pushpa (brother-in-law's wife of the deceased) and at the spur of the moment, scuffle took place between the parties. On seeing the scuffle, the deceased Shanta suddenly came out of the house and reached in between the scuffle. Thus, neither there was any motive or intention of the accused appellant to cause death of the deceased nor there was any previous enmity between the parties. He further submits that it is a case of single injury and death took place on account of excessive bleeding. He further submits that PW-8 Dr. Anil Goyal in his cross examination admitted that if treatment would have been given to the deceased within half an hour or one hour, her life could have been saved. He has relied upon the judgment dtd. 9/9/2020 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Stalin Versus State represented by the Inspector of Police (Cr. Appeal No. 577 of 2020), more particularly para 11 of the judgment, which is reproduced as under: