JHABAR MAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-appellant Jhabra was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar under section 302 I. P. C. for committing murder of Bhagla. Learned Sessions Judge after perusal of the record came to the conclusion that the accused found the deceased committing adultery with his wife and thereafter his wife left the room and went for preparation of food. The accused got enraged and inflicted injuries on the person of Bhagla. Placing reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in A.I.R. 1953 Allahabad page 464, the learned Judge held that the accused was guilty of the office punishable under section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/-, default of payment of fine further suffer one months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) I am not required to deal in detail the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the circumstances b ought forth on record by prosecution, as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has rightly conceded that there is evidence of Nathu P. W. 10 and Badaml P. W. 7 wife of the accused to the effect that accused inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased, as a result of which Bhagla breathed his last.

(3.) I have also looked into the record and satisfied that accused Jhabar Mal did inflict injuries at the time and place mentioned by the prosecution as a result of which Bhagla expired. The only point seriously pressed before me is about the quantum of punishment awarded to the accused. The learned Sessions Judge hat rightly found that the provocation to accused was intense. From the statement of P. W. 7 Mst. Bidami who has not been declared hostile at the trial court and whose statement has been relied by the learned Sessions Judge for convicting the accused, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused at the time of committing the assault was under gravest form of provocation. There was no delay in attack by the accused on the deceased. I am not satisfied that the sentence awarded to the accused is excessive. It is to be noticed that there were incised wounds on the body of the deceased. The essence of exception 1 to section 300 is that the accused is deprived of the power of self control. Obviously in my opinion if a person is deprived of self control the mere amount of beating which he gives to the person who deprives him of that control is not a proper criterion to take into account in awarding a sentence. The more enraged a person is and the more self control he loses, more likely are numerous injuries to be inflicted. The accused has already remained in jail for two years and 90 days. Under these circumstances I consider the sentence suffered by the accused-appellants to be adequate.