LAWS(RAJ)-2004-1-77

BHEEMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On January 09, 2004
BHEEMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The appellant was placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 60/2000 (297/2000) for having committed murder of Megha. The learned Judge vide judgment dated Jan. 16, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-

(2.) The prosecution story is woven like this on July 18, 2000, informant Heera Lal (PW.l) instituted report with the police station Phalasia District Udaipur with the averments that his father Megha (now deceased) was belaboured by Bheema and Hakra. Hakra caught hold of Megha and Bheema gave three lathi blows on his head as a result of which, Megha fell down and became unconscious. P.S. Phalasia, on the basis of said report registered a case under Sections 341,307,323/34 Penal Code and investigation commenced. Megha died during the pendency of investigation and his dead body was subjected to autopsy. Offence under Sec. 302 Penal Code was added. Statements of witnesses under Sec. 161 Crimial P.C. were recorded. Bheema and Hakra wee arrested. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up[ for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur. Charge under Sections 302 and 323 Penal Code was framed against the appellant and under Sec. 341, 302/34 and 323 Penal Code was framed against the appellant and under Sec.341, 302/34 and 323 Penal Code against co-accused Hakra. Appellant denied charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses and got exhibited 24 documents. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C. the appellant claimed innocence. On hearing the final submissions, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above but acquitted co-accused Hakra.

(3.) Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently criticized the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge and canvassed that Heera Lal (P. W. 1) who was examined eye witness, was not present at the time of occurrence as is evident from his cross-examination, wherein he stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, Megha was lying having injuries on his head. Keshi Bai (PW.3), the wife of the deceased also testified that after Roop Singh, Karan Singh and Jabbar Singh took her husband on a cot, Heera Lal arrived. Mani Lal, Investigating Officer(PW. 16) also deposed that during investigation he came to the conclusion that Roop Singh and Gulab Singh were the eye witnesses of the occurrence. In such a situation no reliance could be placed o the testimony of Heera Lal.