BARIYAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by accused-appellant Bariyam Singh challenging the judgment dated 21/07/2004 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Kishangarhbas camp Tijara Alwar in Sessions Case No.62/2003 whereby, he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, he was to further undergo simple imprisonment of two moths.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that injured-Pooran Singh gave a 'parcha bayan' to the SHO Police Station Tapukada, Alwar on 01/03/2003 regarding an incident took place on 28/02/2003 at about 10.00 p.m. He alleged in the 'parcha bayan' that when he was going on the motorcycle to the house of his uncle Jogendra Singh on the fateful day at about 10.00 p.m. and reached in front of his house, his father Bariyam Singh inflicted a 'ballam' blow near his right armpit; resultantly, the flash came out from his body and he fell down. Upon hearing his hue and cry, his brother-Mukhtyar Singh, mother-Taro Bai and sister-Jangiro Bai came rushing there and took him to the Hospital at Tapukada in a serious condition. He alleged that his father inflicted blows with the intention to kill him. On the basis of the 'parcha bayan', the police chalked out a first information report (FIR No.39/2003) against the accused-appellant initially for offence u/S.307 IPC and commenced investigation. Incident had taken place on 28/02/2003 and the 'parcha bayan' of the injured was recorded following day on 01/03/2003. Pooran Singh died seventeen days after the alleged incident on 17/03/2003 and thereafter offence u/S.302 IPC was added in the investigation. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-appellant for the offence aforesaid. After committal of the case, the trial court framed the charge against the accused-appellant for offence u/S.302 IPC, which he denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced twelve witnesses and exhibited twenty two documents, whereas the defence did not produce any witness nor exhibit any document.

(3.) We have heard Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned senior counsel for accused-appellant and Shri Javed Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.