BUDH SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant jail appeal is directed against the judgment dated May 26, 2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City whereby appellant Budh Singh has been convicted under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month and to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's imprisonment respectively.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the prosecution is that on July 28, 1998 at 2. 50 p. m. Parcha-Bayan Ex. P12 of PW11 Arjun Singh S/o Shri Kesar Singh, by caste-Rajput, aged 35 years, R/o- Khudsya, P. S. Gangapur City was recorded by PW14 Ramkaran, ASI, P. S. Gangapur City wherein it was interalia stated by Arjun Singh that Budh Singh is his elder brother. Except one house they had divided their land and other properties and are in possession of their respective shares for the last 25 years. It was also stated by Arjun Singh that they are not being allowed to reside in the aforesaid house by Budh Singh and his son Pancham Singh. Today at 12. 00 noon his wife Mohan Bai and daughter Pappi Bai were standing on the `chabutara' of the aforesaid house. At that time he was at the house of Mohar Singh. On hearing sound of gunshot, he came on the spot and found his daughter Pappi lying injured on the `chabutara'. There were pellet injuries on her abdomen and below right elbow. He found Budh Singh also standing there armed with a gun. Pancham Singh had gone to Gangapur. It was further stated by Arjun Singh that Budh Singh confessed before him that he had killed Pappi and he would also kill him. Moti Singh, Nathu Singh, Jagdish Singh, Anand Singh, Mool Singh, Mukund Singh and other residents of his village came there. Thereafter they took Pappi to Gangapur hospital where she is under treatment. It was also stated in Ex. P12 that on account of partition of property, there is enmity between him and Budh Singh. On the basis of `parcha-Bayan' Ex. P12, a case was registered by the SHO, P. S. Gangapur City under Section 307 IPC Formal FIR is Ex. P30. Pappi was medically examined by PW12 Dr. N. K. Agarwal at 2. 30 p. m. on July 28, 1998. In the course of investigation, the I. O. reached on the spot and prepared Site Plan Ex. P6 on the same day. Blood smeared soil and control soil was seized and sealed vide Seizure Memos' Ex. P1 and Ex. P2. The appellant was arrested on 28. 7. 98 vide Arrest Memo Ex. P5 and on his disclosure statement and at his instance one barrel of S. B. M. L. gun with ram rod, three iron screws, one iron nail, one iron buckle for belt, one iron clip, one brass trigger, one brass patch box cover, one small brass plate of the butt, one brass ram rod holder, one iron strip, two different shapes metallic pieces and six small lead pieces were recovered from the house of the appellant and after sealing these articles, the I. O. prepared Seizure Memos' Ex. P7 and Ex. P8, Pappi succumbed to her injuries at 7. 10 p. m. on 2. 8. 98. Post-mortem examination was conducted by PW13 Dr. M. L. Kawat, Medical Jurist, S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur at 11. 45 a. m. on 3. 8. 98 and he prepared post-mortem report Ex. P17. On the death of Pappi, the I. O. proceeded with the trial for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Inquest Report Ex. P11 of the deceased was prepared. `salwar' and `kurta' which the deceased was wearing at the time of the incident were seized and sealed by the I. O. vide Seizure Memo Ex. P13. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the appellant in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City who committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove these charges, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses. In his statement recorded u/s. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant pleaded innocence and false implication. He further stated that Pappi was killed by his son Pancham Singh. However, no evidence in defence was adduced.

(3.) LEARNED Amicus Curiae did not challenge the veracity of Dr. Agarwal and Dr. Kawat and we see no reason to disbelieve their testimony. Therefore, from the testimony of Dr. Agarwal and Dr. Kawat, it has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the cause of the death of Pappi was the injuries on her abdomen which were caused by firearm. Hence, homicidal death of deceased Pappi stands proved.