NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 16. 9. 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 51/98 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and sentenced in the following manner:- Name of appellant Convicted u/s. Sentence awarded Narayan 302 IPc Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months SI. 323 IPc One month SI and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 15 days.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:- On 24. 8. 1998 at about 4. 15 PM, PW4 Anchhi wife of Madhoo (PW6) lodged an oral report Ex. P/6 before PW21 Keshar Singh, who was at that time ASI in Police Station Gangrar District Chittorgarh stating inter-alia that on that day she, her husband PW6 Madhoo and her elder mother-in-law Mohini wife of Hazari (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) took food in the village Kanti and after taking food, they (PW4 Anchhi, PW6 Madhoo and deceased) all were returning to their village Indora and when they reached near the field of Champa, her son Ratan (PW5) met them and at that time, PW5 Ratan told them that the accused appellant Narayan Kaka and Ratan Kaka abused him and further, they threatened to kill him and therefore, he would not go in the field for the purpose of grazing goats. It was further stated in the report Ex. P/6 by PW4 Anchhi that thereafter, she made her son PW5 Ratan understand and thereupon, her son PW5 Ratan went in the field for the purpose of grazing goats. It was further stated in the report Ex. P/6 by PW4 Anchhi that thereafter, she saw accused appellant Narayan and Ratan S/o Khumbha, who are her uncle-in-law, in the field and at that time, she complained about the incident which had taken place with her son PW5 Ratan and upon this, Ratan gave lathi blow to her and upon this, her husband PW6 Madhoo asked why she was being beaten and upon this, the accused appellant came with kulhari and gave kulhari blow on the head of PW6 Madhoo, as a result of which, he fell down and thereafter, Ratan also gave beating to her husband PW6 Madhoo. It was further stated in the report Ex. P/6 by PW4 Anchhi that when the above incident was going on, deceased intervened in the matter and tried to save PW6 Madhoo, but the accused appellant gave kulhari blow on the leg of deceased, as a result of which she fell down and thereafter, the accused appellant gave further kulhari blows on the neck and head of the deceased and Ratan also tried to beat her (PW4 Anchhi) with lathi, but she ran away from the place of occurrence and came to the village. It was further stated in the report Ex. P/6 by PW4 Anchhi that thereafter, PW10 Mangilal son of Laxman brought her husband PW6 Madhoo to the village Gayari and informed that deceased was lying dead in the field of Champa. On motive, it was further stated in the report Ex. P/6 by PW4 Anchhi that since the deceased was not having any child of her own, therefore, deceased took her son PW5 Ratan in adoption and since accused appellant was not happy with this adoption, therefore, for that, he committed the murder of the deceased. On this report Ex. P/6, police chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/21 and started investigation. During investigation, post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted by PW1 Dilip Sharma and the post mortem report is Ex. P/2. PW4 Anchhi was also got medically examined and her injury report is Ex. P/3, which shows that she received one simple injury. Similarly, PW6 Madhoo was also got medically examined and his injury report is Ex. P/4, which shows that he received four injuries. THEreafter, investigation was conducted by PW14 Ratan Singh, who was at that time SHO, Police Station Gangrar and he got prepared site inspection note and site plan Ex. P/7 and also seized the clothes of the deceased through fard Ex. P/13. THE accused appellant was arrested by PW14 Ratan Singh on 25. 8. 1998 through arrest memo Ex. P/15 in presence of witnesses PW18 Rajendra Kumar and PW19 Jitendra Pal Singh and at the time of arrest, the accused appellant was wearing pent (Article 4) and that pent (Article 4) was seized by PW14 Ratan Singh through fard Ex. P/16 in presence of witnesses PW18 Rajendra Kumar and PW19 Jitendra Pal Singh. During investigation, the accused appellant gave information on 26. 8. 1998 in respect of kulhari and the same was reduced in writing by PW14 Ratan Singh in the shape of Ex. P/17 and in pursuance of that information, the accused appellant got recovered a blood stained kulhari (article 3) and the same was seized by PW14 Ratan Singh through fard Ex. P/18 in presence of witnesses PW12 Laxman and PW13 Shankar. THE FSL report is Ex. P/20, which shows that human blood was found on pent (Article 4) and kulhari (Article 3 ). After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellant in the court of Magistrate and from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 13. 1. 1999, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh framed charges for the offence under Sections 302 and 323 IPC against the accused appellant. THE charges were read over and explained to the accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined as many as 22 witnesses and exhibited several documents. THEreafter, statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. No evidence was led in defence by the accused appellant. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh through impugned judgment and order dated 16. 9. 2000, convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 323 IPC and sentenced him in the manner as stated above holding inter-alia:- (i) That placing reliance on the statements of two eye witnesses, namely, PW4 Anchhi and PW6 Madhoo, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the accused appellant gave kulhari blow on the neck of the deceased, as a result of which she died. (ii) That blood stained kulhari (Article 3), by which murder of the deceased was committed, was recovered at the instance of the accused appellant. (iii) That the fact that kulhari (Article 3) recovered at the instance of the accused appellant and pent (Article 4) of the accused appellant were stained with human blood was confirmed by the FSL report Ex. P/20. (iv) That there was a motive also in the sense that after son of the deceased died, deceased took the son of PW4 Anchhi in adoption and since the accused appellant was son of her devar, therefore, the accused appellant was angry with such adoption and thus, there was a motive. (v) That for the injuries, which were received by PW4 Anchhi, the accused appellant was not held responsible, but for the injuries of PW6 Madhoo, the accused appellant was held responsible. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 16. 9. 2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh, the accused appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) PW1 Dr. Dilip Sharma in his statement recorded in Court has stated that on 25. 8. 1998 he was Medical Jurist in the General Hospital, Chittorgarh and on that day, he conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries on her body:- 1. Incised wound 5" x 1- 1/2" x 2" neck left side 3/4" deep at margin central deep well defined margin below (L) margin of mandible. 2. Incised wound 4" x 2" x 2" margin about 1" deep (central deep) well defined margin on neck left lateral aspect, cutting of Left sterno cleido Mastoid muscle with carotid vessles. 3. Incised wound 4" x 01" x 1" face left side central deep margin about 1/2" deep with well defined margin extending from outer end of left eye to left ear with cutting of muscle and artery and bone. 4. Lacerated wound 4" x 3" x bone deep chest left side below left clevicle. 5. Lacerated wound 4" x 7" x 1" Rt. knee joint. He has further stated that the cause of death of the deceased was shock due to haemorrhage following cutting of left carotid vessels, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has proved the post mortem report Ex. P/2.