VELA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12.6.1986 passed by the learned Sesions Judge, Udaipur, whereby he found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of rupees fifty, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

(2.) BRIEFLY the case projected by the prosecution during the trial can be summarised like this: P.W.10 Nana and P.W.7 Partha sons of Nola are the cousins of appellant's father Kama. It is alleged that on 3.7.1984, the dead body of Bhanwaria, aged about 12 years and the only son of appellant Vela, was found in a well near village Thoba Bada. In this connection proceedings under Section 174 Cr. P.C. were initiated by the S.H.O., Police Station, Ogna. It is alleged that appellant Vela suspected that P.W.10 Nana had murdered his son. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.10.1984 at about 10 A.M. when P.W.7 Partha along with his nephew Dharma son of P.W.10 Nana while returning from village Koliari, after selling the wood collected by them when they reached nearthe fields of P.W.12 Lal Khan, appellant Vela armed with a dharia came towards them from the opposite side, It is further alleged that the appellant raised his dharia to inflict a blow on Dharma, but the latter ran away. Appellant hotly pursued him and crossing the hillock/he dealt dharia blows on the neck and head of Dharma in the field of Rao Sahab. The said occurrence was withnessed by P.W.7 Partha from the top of the hillock. Dharma fell down and succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, appellant Vela fled away. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W. 13 Nana son of Jumma had also reached the place of occurrence. Partha asked him to look after the dead body and went to his village Upretta, where he informed about the incident to P.W.10 Nana and others. Thereafter, he along with P.W.10 Nana and others came to the place of occurrence. Thereafter Partha went to Police Station, Falasia, which is about ten kilometers away from the place of occurrence and on the same day at about 4 P.M. submitted a written report [Ex.P.4]. P.W. 14 Sajjan Singh, S.H.O. registered the case under Section 302 I.P.C. vide F.I.R. Ex. P. 5 and rushed to the spot the same evening. He prepared the panchnama of the dead body [Ex.P.6] and seized & sealed samples of blood -stained and the control soil samples. He also prepared the site -plan and its memo Ex.p.7. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.10.1984 at about 1.30 P.M. appellant Vela went to Police Station, Jhadol and requested for his security. Report No. 298 (Ex.P.8) was, therefore, scribed in the General Diary of Police Station, Jhadol. On 12.10.1984, the appellant was arrested in this case. On 13.10.1984 at about 11 P.M., the appellant voluntarily gave information under Section 27 Evidence Act vide memo Ex. P.10 and got the blood -stained dharia Article 1 recovered at his instance on 14.10.1984 hidden inside the dense grass near the hillock known as 'Dhola Dav', which was seized and sealed. The Serologist of the State Porensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur after examination vide his report Ex.P.3 found the blood -stained earth and blood -stained clothes of the deceased stained with human blood. However, since the blood stains on the dharia Article 1 were disintegrated, origin thereof could not be determined.

(3.) THE appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C, to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined as many as 15 withnesses. The appellant in his plea record under Section 313 Cr. P.C. generally denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and asserted that he had gone to Jhadol for filing a suit against Partha in respect of agricultural land, where he was arrested at the office of Dy. Superintendent of Police. He refuted that he had suspected the deceased Dharma and P.W.10 Nana for the murder of his son. He also denied the alleged factum of recovery of dharia Article I at his instance. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him in the manner detailed above. Hence this appeal.