PRABHU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated December 23, 1981 of learned Sessions Judge, Tonk whereby he convicted accused Prabbu son of Deva under section 302 Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Ramnath and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo one months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Succinctly speaking, short of unnecessary details, the prosecution case as disclosed at the trial is that on 9th February, 1981 Ramnath (since deceased) was working on the field of Thakur Shivraj Singh. A verbal altercation took place between the accused and Ramnath. Prabhu lifted a Nojana (stick) and inflicted two blows on the head of Ramnath. Thereafter, Prabhu left the place. It is alleged that P.W. 4 Ramchandra witnessed this occurrence from a distance of 200 Yds. A written report Ex. p. i was given by Ganga Bishan P.W. 9. Formal F.I.R. on the basis of the written report was reduced into writing by the Investigating Officer and the same has been marked as Ex. P. 2. Ganga Bishan states in the F.I.R. that Kesra barber told him that the accused and the deceased quarreled with each other. On enquiry Kesra barber told him that the latter was informed by Kalyan Babri and Kalyan on enquiry informed that Jagdish told him about the occurrence. After registering the case, the Investigating Officer went on the scene of occurrence, prepared site plan Ex. P. 7 and inquest report Ex. P. 8. The post-mortem on the dead body was performed by P. W. 10 Dr. Gopal Lal Gupta on 10th February 1981. Post-mortem report is Ex. P. 12. A blood stained stone was seized from the site and the same was produced on record and has been marked as Ex. P. 10. Accused was arrested vide Ex. P. 14 on 14th February 1981. At the time of arrest he was wearing bloodstained shirt and a dhoti which were seized vide Ex.P.15. On 18th February, .981, the accused expressed his desire to get the NojnaT recovered. The information was reduced into writing and the same has been marked as Ex P. 19. In consequence to that information Nojna was got recovered at the instance of the accused vide recovery memo Ex. P. 17. A site plan of the house from which Nojna was recovered, was also prepared and the same bas been marked as Ex P. 16. The seized articles were sent to Chemical examination and thereafter they were sent to the Serologist. The reports of the Chemical analyst and Serologist are Ex. P. 20 & Ex. F. 21 respectively. Police after usual investigation submitted a challan and the accused was committed to the court of sessions for trial. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. Prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of their case, out of whom P. W. 4 Ramchandra was examined as eyewitness of the occurrence. P.W. I Ramdayal, P.W. 2 Jagdish, P.W. 8 Kesra did not support the prosecution case and made contradictory statements, as such they were declared hostile to the prosecution, and the learned Public Prosecutor was allowed to cross-examine them. P.W. 9 Ganga Bishan is the author of the F.J.R. P.W. 10 Dr. Gopal Lal Gupta was examined to prove the injuries sustained by the accused as well as the post- mortem report. P.W. 12 Mahendra Pratap Singh was examined to prove the recovery of Nojna. P.W. 14 Lakhpat Ram is the Investigating Officer of this case. The accused denied his complicity in the crime, but did not examine any witness in defence. The learned Sessions Judge placed reliance on the statement of P.W.4 Ramchandra as well as recovery of blood-stained NojnaT and the blood-stained clothes of the accused corroborated by the medical evidence and the circumstantial evidence given by P. W. 3 and found the accused guilty. He convicted the accused-appellant as mentioned above.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant has vehemently urged that there are certain circumstances in the prosecution case which go to prove that the investigation was not fair. P.W. 4 Ramchandra cannot be said to be a witness of truth. He has made a vaccilating statement and it would not be safe to convict an accused under section 302 Indian Penal Code on the solitary statement of such a witness. He further submits that recovery of Nojna which was found to be stained with human blood and the clothes which were found by the Chemical Examiner as stained with blood, is unreliable.