BANWARI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh dated 21. 10. 86 whereby he has convicted the accused appellant u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further six months R. I. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also convicted the appellant u/s. 27 of the Indian Arms Act and has sentenced him to three years R. I.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that the appellant Banwari is the step brother of Abhimanyu and was cultivating the land of his step sister Roshni. On 11. 6. 84, the appellant had his turn of watering his field. At 6. 55 a. m. his brother Satpal and servant Chhida Singh went to cut out the water. At that time both complainant and the accused came out of their respective Dhanies, situated nearby. It was alleged that the appellant Banwari gave a 'lalkar' to Satpal and shot fire at him with a 12 bore pistol, which hit Satpal. Satpal fell down. Banwari, the appellant ran away. THEreafter, Abhimanyu, Roshni and Chhida Singh went near Satpal and saw that due to fire and injury he was bleeding from the chest and they found him dead. It was also alleged that the land of Roshni which was earlier cultivated by the appellant was later on taken back and the same was given to Totaram Singh on 1/3 rd share which caused grievance to the accused. A report of this incident was lodged by Abhimanyu at P. S. Pilibanga on 11. 6. 84 at 10. 15 a. m. On this, a case u/s. 302 IPC and 27 Arms Act was registered. THE appellant was arrested on 14. 6. 84. After due investigation challan was filed in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh who committed the case to the court of Additional Sessions Judge for trial. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges, to which the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and filed 23 documents and in defence the appellant examined two witnesses and also filed two documents. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge after due trial found the case well established against the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) P. W. 1 Chhida Singh has stated that when he returned after checking 'khala', he saw that Satpal was lying dead and showed his ignorance as to how Satpal had expired. This witness was declared hostile. In his cross-examination he has denied that he heard any sound of gun shot. In his cross-examination he has stated that Abhimanyu was not residing in Dhani but at 'dulmani' and on the date of incident Abhimanyu was not in Dhani. He has also denied that Roshni was present there as she was at her in- law's house, situated in another village. He has further stated that he saw Satpal dead at about 4-4. 30 a. m. He has further stated that a person has to reach field to check 'nakka' and 'khala' before 2-21/2 hours on the turn of water supply. Thus, the testimony of this witness does not help the prosecution at all.