STATE Vs. JAGANNATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Jagannath Singh (hereinafter to be referred to as the accused) was challaned by the Police, Gangapur under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of First Magistrate, Gangapur.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution was that on the 18th of May, 1949 at about 7 A. M. the accused met Jawala Prasad near Mahant-ki-bagichi in the town off Wazirpur and he was loading his gun at that time. THE accused asked Jawala Prasad to tell Chiranji Laturia (hereinafter to be referred to as the deceased) that he should be careful in passing that way. Jawala Prasad conveyed this message to the deceased and asked him not to pass that way, but when he returned from the town and was going to prepare his food in the bagichi, he heard a sound of gunfire and immediately after Ram Kania, daughter of Raghunath Prasad reached there and told him that Pujari Baba had been shot dead by Thakur Baba, At that time Chiranji, Bhoria and Bajranga who were in the bagichi came out and saw the dead body of the deceased and found the accused going towards the police station. THE accused reached the police station and informed the police authorities there that he had killed Chiranji Laturia and that he should be put behind the bars. THE police arrested him end seized a loaded gun which he had with him at that time, from his possession and after necessary investigation challaned him under sed. 302 IPC in the court of First Magistrate, Gangapur who committed the accused to take his trial under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code before the Additional Sessions Judgem Gangapur.

(3.) TAKING up the evidence under the fourth head, that is, the information passed on by Ram Kania, I find that there is a good deal of discrepancy between the statements of the various witnesses. I may mention here that the accused had no proper legal assistance in the lower court and was altogether unrepresented. There was no proper cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses on behalf of the accused, but the evidence, even as it stands, discloses serious discrepancy and was, therefore, rightly rejected by the lower court. Bhonrilal P. W. 10 says that after he heard the report of the gun, Ram Kania came to the Bagichi and said that Pujari Baba ("deceased) had been killed by Thakur Baba (accused ). He further says, that he did not hear anything whatsoever,excepting the above from Ram Kania. Bhajanlal, P. W. 13, however, who is also said to have been present with Bhonrilal at the Bagichi says that Ram Kania said that Thakur Baba had killed Pujari Baba, but adds that when she was asked where the deceased was killed, she said that he was killed under a Tamarind tree. Jawala Prasad P. W. 15 says that when Ram Kania came to the Bagichi, he asked her why she was weeping, but she said nothing to him and said to her father's sister who was at Sewa in the temple that Thakur Baba had killed Pujari Baba. He states that Bhonrilal and Bhajanlal were present at that time. The evidence of these witness is belied by the evidence of Raghunath Prasad P. W. 8 who says that Ram Kania did not say that the deceased was killed by the accused but that it was Gulkandi who said so. Ram Kania was produced before the trial court but she did not state that she had seen the accused shooting the deceased nor that she gave any information about the death of the deceased to Gulkandi or any of the prosecution witnesses. Gulkandi too was not examined. The evidence which has been produced is by no means of the best type on this point and is very discrepant. It cannot therefore, be acted upon.