MOHD IDRESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT appeal has been filed by appellant Mohd. Idresh questioning the correctness of the judgment dated February 4, 1999 of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota in Sessions Case No. 75/96 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to further suffer one year's simple imprisonment.

(2.) IN brief the prosecution case is that on receiving telephonic message that at `bhattji Ghat Patanpol' incident of inflicting knife occurred, Sawant Singh, SHO of Police Station Kaithunipol, Kota entered the said information in `roznamcha' and immediately rushed to M. B. S. Hospital where written report Ex. P5 was submitted to him with the averments that appellant inflicted injury with dagger on the left side of back of Iqbal (now deceased) as a result of which he fell down and also sustained injuries by fall. Motive behind the incident was that father of the appellant was tenant in the house of the deceased and on March 14, 1996 father of appellant was asked to vacate the house. Because of this appellant got enraged and committed the offence. On the basis of the said report, a case u/s. 307 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During the pendency of investigation Iqbal died and the case was converted into Section 302 IPC. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and in due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota. Charge for offence under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant who denied the charge and claimed trial. As many as 19 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. IN the explanation u/s. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. Four witnesses were examined in defence. The learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated here-in-above.

(3.) IN State of Karnataka vs. Vedanayagam (3), it was indicated that it is fallacious to contend that wherever there is a single injury only a case of culpable homicide is made out irrespective of other circumstances.