BHANWAR LAL GODARA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was accused on the file of learned Special Judge (Sati Nivaran) Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur bearing Sessions Case No. 40/1998. Learned Special Judge vide judgment dated May 12, 2000 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5 000/-, in default to further suffer four Months Rigorous Imprisonment. U/s. 201 IPC: To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1 000/-, in default to further suffer one Month Rigorous Imprisonment. Substantial sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution story runs as under:- On August 27, 1997 around 2. 00 am the informant Ram Singh (PW. 5) submitted a written report at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur with the averments that in the morning of preceding day while the informant and Raj Kumar (now deceased) were having break fast in the house of Bhanwar Lal Godara (appellant), they were invited by the appellant to enjoy dinner with him in his house in the evening Around 7. 00 PM the informant and Raj Kumar went on motor cycle to the house of the appellant to attend dinner party. Around 9. 30 PM when the informant and other invites comprising of two constables, Ram Lal Mamu and one Netaji had been gossiping and Raj Kumar was cooking vegetable, the appellant opened knife and inflicted 2-3 blows on the abdomen of Raj Kumar. THE appellant also made attempt to chase the information, but he fled away. A case under section 302 IPC was registered by Police Station Vaishali Nagar and investigation commended. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before 6the learned Special Judge (Sati Nivaran) Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City Jaipur. Charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 22 witnesses and got exhibited the documents. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) HAVING scrutinised the evidence adduced at the trial we find the fact situation thus:- (i) Prior to the incident Mahendra Kumar Saini (PW. 7) the brother of deceased did not allow the appellant to enter his house because appellant was under intoxication. The appellant became angry and hit the door by foot. (ii) In the house of appellant while Constables Jhabar Mal, Hawai Singh, one Netaji and Ram Swaroop had consumed liquor. After Ram Swaroop and Netaji left, the appellant went inside and came back with knife, stabbed the knife on the abdomen of Raj Kumar and wrested it back. Thereafter the appellant chased Ram Singh, who left the house and fled away. (iii) Around 11. 30 PM the appellant had a talk with informed Mahendra Kumar Saini on telephone. At that time appellant was under the influence of liquor and told that he had killed Raj Kumar. (iv) Prior to the incident the deceased paid money to the appellant for liquor and meat. (v) Narendra Kumar (PW. 15) Investigating Officer recovered blood from the plot vide memo (Ex. P-9), where the dead body was found. Soil socked with blood was recovered from the house of appellant vide Ex. P-10. Motbirs Yagya Dutt Sharma (PW. 2) and Mahendra Kumar Saini (PW. 7) corroborated the testimony of Narendra Kumar. Under-wear of deceased stained with blood was recovered vide memo Ex. P-16. From the FSL report (Ex. P-47) blood of the deceased was of group `b'. (vi) According to Dr. G. K. Mathur (PW. 19), Assistant Director FSL the floor of the house of appellant was found washed and spots of blood were found on the door, bath-room and boundary wall. Al per FSL report the spots of blood were of group `b'. (vii) Underwear of appellant stained with blood, knife allegedly used in commission of offence and three cameras were recovered at the instance of appellant.