JAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Jai Singh against the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore dated18-3-1985 whereby the accused appellant Jai Singh has been convicted under S.302, IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo further two months R.I.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that one Durg Singh son of a sister-in-law of Jethu Singh was living with Jethu Singh since long as he had no male issue due to which brother of Jethu Singh and his nephews were unhappy. They were claiming their right over the property of Jethu Singh, which had given rise to several quarrels between Jai Singh s/o Bhop Singh and Jethu Singh. It is alleged that on the date of incident, in the evening Jai Singh demanded Rs. 500, - from Jethu Singh and his wife. On refusal Jai Singh called bad name to them and at that time he was having a knife with him. Thereafter, it is alleged that in the night when Durg Singh and Jethu Singh were sleeping at Bera to keep Watch on the crop, animals and well, the accused Jai Singh inflicted blows on the face of Durg Singh in the midnight. It is also alleged that on hearing the groaning of Durg Singh, Jethu Singh woke up and saw Jai Singh inflicting injuries on the deceased Durg Singh. The accused Jai Singh after inflicting blows fled away towards his Dhani. Jethu Singh went his home and narrated whole story to his wife Ugam Kanwar who went to inform Pratap Singh, the first informant and Jethu Singh went to Guman Singh They reached the place of occurrence along with these witnesses. The witnesses saw that Durg Singh was lying dead on the cot and his face was bleeding profusely. Nearby another cot on which Jethu Singh slept was also lying, Mangal Singh, Bhop Singh, Himmat Singh and the wife of Bhop Singh reached the place of occurrence and Jethu Singh narrated whole incident to them. In the morning Mangal Singh, Bhop Singh and Himmat Singh etc. followed the foot prints of accused of going and coming. It is further alleged that to swallow up the property of Jethu Singh, accused Jai Singh has murdered Durg Singh. A written report was submitted to this effect by the witness P.W. 3 Pratap Singh. The police registered a case under S. 302, IPC and started investigation. After inspecting the site, site plan and description memo of dead body were prepared. The dead body was sent for post mortem. The clothes of the deceased were seized and sealed. The accused Jai Singh was arrested on 1-9-1983 vidc Ex. P-8. Blood stained shirt of the accused was sealed. On the information of the accused and at his instance blood stained lathi and knife were recovered vide Ex P-7 and sent for chemical examination. After investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused under S.302, IPC before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal, who committed it to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Jalore. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge aginst the accused under S. 302, IPC, on 14-11-1983. The accused-appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. In support of its case the prosecution has produced nine witnesses and 13 documents. The accused in his statement under S. 313, Cr. P.C. has denied the recovery of shirt and knife. He has also denied that they were stained with blood. He has also stated that a false case has been fabricated as there exists rivalry between him and Jethu Singh for land. In the defence the accused produced D.W. I (Guman Singh. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the material on record and after concluding the trial has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Jai Singh as stated above. Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the accused Jai Singh has filed this appeal.

(3.) Mr. Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the accused has been wrongly convicted on the basis of false story. He has submitted that Jethu Singh has been falsely produced by the prosecution as an eye-witness. He has also submitted that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. He has further submitted that there are two types of injuries, so the story of one accused is highly improbable and does not connect the accused with the commission of offence. Mr. Doongar Singh has also submitted that the recovery of lathi and knife is also doubtful, therefore, the conviction and sentence of the accused may be quashed.