SHAHABUDDIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that on November 29, 1970, Zahurddin Chippe, resident of Khinvsar, lodged a report with the police station, Bhawanda, to the effect that during the night of November 28, 1970, at about 11. 30 accused Shahbuddin broke open a window of his house. He entered his house and inflicted a. 'gupti' blow to the abdomen of his wife Mst. Hazran, Mst. Hazran raised shrieks. Which attracted neighbours as also the informant. Mst. Hazran was first, taken to Khinvsar Dispensary and then to Nagaur Hospital. On her way to Nagaur she breathed her last. On receipt of the first information report filed by Zahurddin. a case was registered against Shahbuddin under Section 302, I. P. C. The police took over investigation and after its conclusion it presented a charge-sheet to the Court of Munsiff Magistrate. Nagaur, Learned Munsiff Magistrate conducted preliminary inquiry and committed accused Shahbuddin to the Court of Sessions Judge, Merta. The accused was indicted of the offence under Section 302/457, I. P. C. to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of its case. In his statement, recorded under Section 342, Cr. P. C. , the accused dented the prosecution version. He pleaded alibi and stated that on November 28, 1970, he had gone to Jodhpur. He did not produce any evidence in his defence. Learned Sessions Judge, Merta, acquitted Shahbuddin of the crime under Section 302, I. P. C. but convicted him under Section 304 (1), I. P. C. and sentenced him to suffer ten years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of Payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for five months.

(2.) DISSATISFIED by the above verdict, the accused has taken this appeal. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that in this case there is no direct proof, connecting the accused with the crime. The entire case hinges around the following three pieces of evidence:

(3.) THE above three pieces of evidence, learned Counsel urges, have not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and therefore, the conviction of the appellant should be set aside. Learned Deputy Government Advocate supports the judgment of the Court below.