MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Mohan Singh has filed this appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, dated 22nd December, 1969, whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence under sec. 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment.

(2.) THE facts as revealed by Gyanchand (P. W. 4), the only eye witness in this case, are as follows : Gyanchand and his brother Jogender Singh were serving the accused as his Siris and they used to reaside in a Kotha situate in the same Ahata where accused Mohan Singh used to live. On 11th of March, 1969, Jogender Singh had gone out to Punjab. His wife Mst. Taro and the only child 1-1/2 years old were left in the custody of his brother Gyanchand. At about 8 or 9 in the morning Mohan Singh rebuked Mst. Taro for having committed theft of fodder from his field. It is said that Mst. Taro also called bad names to Mohan Singh At that time Mst. Taro was preparing tea in her kitchen situate outside the Kotha. Mohan Singh could not tolerate this insolent behaviour of Mst. Taro and he, therefore, gave a Kulhari blow from the sharp side on the forehead of Mst. Taro and thereafter dealt two more Kulhari blows from the wrong side on the parietal regions of the forehead of the deceaseds Gyanchand, who was saddling the camel in the same Ahata of Mohan Singh, witnessed this occurrence. He raised an alarm whereupon accused Mohan Singh ran away from that place. It is said that on hearing the alarm Pargan (P. W. 1) reached the spot of occurrence and thereafter he was followed by Swaran (P. W. 3) and then by Shankar (P. W. 2 ). Besides these three persons, many other persons came but it is said that when Pargan, Swaran and Shanker reached the spot of occurrence, Gyanchand told them 'hat Mohan Singh had inflicted Kulhari blows on the head of Mst. Taro. Shanker was then sent to Padam-pur to fetch a jeep and when the jeep was brought Mst. Taro, who was lying in an unconscious state, was shifted immediately to Padampur where she was admitted in the hospital. Dr. C. S. Bhati (P. W. 6) examined the injuries of Mst. Taro and found that she had sustained the following three injuries on her head: (1) Incised wound 2" x 1/6" x 1/5" oblique on the right parietal region near the mid line of scalp, 1/2" away from the mid line. (2) Lacerated wound 2-1/2" x 1/3" x 1/2" on the right parietal region obliquely running downwards and forwards from near the mid line of the scalp, 1-1/2" away from the mid line lies the posterior end of the wound. (3) Lacerated wound 3-1/3" x 1/3" x 1/2" sagital on the left parietal region 4-1/2" above the left ear.

(3.) THE statements of Pargan (P. W. 1) and Swaran (P. W. 3) have not been believed by the trial court for the reasons given by that court and we agree with the reasoning of the learned trial Judge for discarding the evidence of Pargan (P. W. 1) and Swaran (P. W. 3) and therefore we also propose not to rely on the statements of these two witnesses, but it cannot be said with certainty that Pargan (P. W. 1) and Swaran (P. W. 3) did not at all visit the place of occurrence after the alarm was raised by Gyanchand and, therefore, in these circumstances it is difficult to accept that the prosecution has deliberately introduced such witnesses whose presence at the place of occurrence was impossible. On that ground, therefore, it is difficult for us to discard the testimony of Gyanchand. It is true that Pargan's name does not find place in the first information report (Ex. P. /l) and that Swaran (P. W. 3) has deposed certain facts which on the very face of them appear to be false, but discarding their testimony on these grounds would not make Gyanchand's testimony doubtful.