ROOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was indicted before the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli for having committed murder of Ram Dayal in Sessions Case No. 48/97 vide judgment dated 7th April, 1998. He was found guilty under Sec. 302 Penal Code and convicted and sentenced thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500.00 . In default to further suffer six months' simple imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution story as pictured during trial is that on June 18, 1997 around 8.00 A.M. when Ram Dayal (now deceased) was on his way to take bath at well, he was surrounded by the appellant and other four persons Tejram, Bhoor Singh, Vishnu and Kirpal. After exchange of hot words the appellant inflicted lathi blow on the head of Ram Dayal whereas another lathi blow was inflicted by Tej Ram. Ram Dayal made attempt to save him and rushed towards his house. Bhoor Singh, Kripal and Vishnu followed him and inflicted lathi blows on his person as a result of which Ram Dayal fell down near his house and died. Report of the said incident was lodged with the Police Station Masalpur at 11.30 PM. on 18.6.1997 and investigation was undertaken. Inquest report was drawn and autopsy on the dead body of Ram Dayal was conducted. Statements of the witnesses under Sec. 161 Cr.RC. were recorded. The appellant was arrested and at his instance lathi allegedly used in commission of offence got recovered. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed only against the appellant and the case was neither kept pending under section 173(8) Cr.RC. against the co-accused persons nor any explanation was given as to why co-accused were not charge - sheeted. In due course, the case come up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli. Charge under Sec. 302 Penal Code was framed against the appellant who denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 24 witnesses and got exhibited 26 documents. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr.RC. the appellant claimed innocence. No defence, however, was produced by the appellant. The learned trial judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove.

(3.) Delving deep into the material on record, we find that only two witnesses Ram Kumar RW. 3 and Ram Babu RW. 11 the nephews of the deceased have supported the prosecution case. From the scrutiny of the record it appears that only one injury by lathi on the head of the deceased was attributed to the appellant. After arguing the case for some time in regard to delayed first information report and the abnormal conduct of the alleged eye witnesses Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant made alternative submission that even if evidence adduced by the prosecution is relied upon, the case of the appellant comes under the purview of exception IV of Sec. 300 Penal Code as there was no enmity between the appellant and the deceased and incident had occurred all of a sudden while the deceased was going to take bath at the well. Before inflicting lathi blow, there was altercation between the appellant and the deceased and the injury appears to have been inflicted in the heat of passion and the appellant did not act in a cruel and unusual manner.