ROOPA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is appeal by accused Roopa against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh dated August 27, 1983 convicting the appellant Under Sections 447, 32/34 and 334, Part I, IPC and sentencing him to one month's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 50/ -, under the first two counts and seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100/ - under the third count.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that deceased -victim Kalu was the real brother of PW 4 Chatra. Chatra owed a sum of Rs. 40 to the accused -appellant. In the afternoon of 7 -11 -81, Chatra and Kalu were ploughing their field situate an Manja Borkheri P.S. Dholapani district Chittorgarh. The accused -appellant accompanied with his father, brother, mother, wife and brother's wife came there. He had an axe in his hand and the others had Lathies and stones. Accused Roopa asked Chatra to make the payment of the money he owed. Chatra told that he would soon make the payment. This did not satisfy the accused -appellant and bis companions. Accused Roopa struck a blow with his axe on the head of Kalu. Kalu fell down and there was profuse bleeding from his wound. The father and brother of the accused -appellant struck blows with Lathies to Chatra. Chatra raised cries. The accused -appellant and his companions thereupon went away. Chatra went to Police Station Dholapani and lodged report Ex. P 1 of the occurrence at about 10.30 AM on 8 -11 -81. The police registered a case under Sections 147, 447 and 336, IPC. The investigation ensured, Kalu was taken first to Government Dispensary, Chhoti Sadri and from there to Government Hospital, Chittorgarh where his injuries were examined by the Medical Jurist Dr. R.D. Bhatt (PW 7). The doctor found the following injuries:

(3.) IN assailing the conviction, the first contention raised by the learned counsel is that there was no reliable evidence to support the prosecution version that the accused -appellant inflicted blow of axe on the head of deceased victim Kalu. It was argued that the alleged eye witnesses PW 1 Lalki, P W 2 Hakri, PW 4 Chatra, PW 8 Rodki and PW 9 Mst. Nawli were the close relatives of the deceased -victim. They were naturally interested persons. The learned Judge committed an error in putting implicit faith on what they testified. It was further argued that PW 5 Babu, who is also alleged to have seen the occurrence, lent no support to the prosecution. In these circumstances, the case does not travel beyond the orbit of reasonable doubt The benefit of doubt should, therefore, go to the accusedappellant. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the view taken by the trial judge and contended that the evidence of the eye witnesses cannot be discarded merely due to their relationship with the deceased -victim. PW 5 Babu, though did not support the prosecution case, yet admitted the presence of the accused -appellant on the spot. I have taken the respective contentions into consideration.