ISHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Ishwar Singh, accused, against his conviction under Sec. 302, Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for three months awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, by his judgment dated 22-8-80.

(2.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 14-6-1979, Takhat Singh (PW/1) filed an oral report at 7 a.m. in Police Station, Jhalawar that in the intervening night of 13-6-1979 and 14-6-1979, while he was sleeping in the night at 2 a.m., he heard a noise of beating in the house of accused-appellant Ishwar Singh. He also heard certain abuses being hurled by Ishwar Singh. When he went on the roof he saw that the accused was dragging some person by catching hold of his feet and was taking him towards a bada and, after about few minutes Ishwar Singh returned to his house. After some time Ishwar Singh came and knocked at the doors of the informant. On this the informant called his uncle Udai Singh, whose house was in the neighbourhood and called him that somebody wanted to enter into his house. On this Udai Singh told him that he was just coming after loading his gun. In the meantime, the accused came inside his house and told his informant, Takhat Singh, to come downstairs for two minutes as the accused wanted to talk to him. Takhat Singh refused to come downstairs and on this the accused gave a threatening that he had already killed Maganiya and, now it was the rum of the informant. In the meantime, Udai Singh came there and, on this the accused ran away. While returning back, the accused gave abuses to Udai Singh also. Thereafter, Takhat Singh went to Udai Singh and narrated the entire story. Then, both Takhat Singh and Udai Singh went to Baney Singhs house and lie was also told the entire story and then all these persons went to the house of the accused and saw that blood in large quantity was lying outside the house and there were marks of dragging a person. These marks were also blood-stained. The accused was not in his house and then all these three persons became scared and could not advance and sat in the house of Bancy Singh. Then in the morning before sun-rise they started for the police station. On a report, the police registered a case under Sec. 302, IPC. Sub-inspector inspected the site on 14-6-1979 and found the dead body of Magania son of Baxa Gujar, resident of Kalmandikala outside the Bada adjoining the house of the accused. There were number of injuries on the person of the deceased. The dead body was sent for post-mortem and, on examination it was found that there were nine injuries by sharp edged weapon on the neck and face of the deceased, and three by blunt weapon. In the opinion of the Doctor, these injuries were anti-mortam and the death of Magania was the result of these injuries. The accused was arrested on 14-6-1979 and at his instance, the axe Art. 5 was recovered on 15-6-1979. The said axe was recovered from the bada of the accused. The accused when arrested was wearing shoes and payajama which were also found to be bloodstained and the same were also taken into custody. Sand was also collected from the spot which was stained with blood, and the axe, the payajama, shoes and sand were sent to the chemical Examiner. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner, all the above articles were found containing blood. After completing the investigation the challan was submitted in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar from where it was committed for trial to the Court of Session, Jhalawar. The accused was read over the charge under Sec. 302, IPC. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The plea of the accused is of total denial. The prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses in support of its case. The accused did not examine any witnesses in defence. The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the prosecution evidence found the accused guilty for having committed the offence of murder and convicted him under Sec. 302, Penal Code and sentenced in the manner stated above.

(3.) Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of conviction the accused has filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence against the accused for having seen the commission of the crime by the accused.