CHUNNI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15-4-1991, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302, IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the First Information Report, is that on 8-11-1988, Chunni Lal S/o Shri Roopa Meena came to the house of Ramji. At that time Ramji was not at his house but his son Shanker was present in the house. Chunni Lal asked Shanker that he did not care for Ramji. After saying so, Chunni Lal left the house. Sometime thereafter Ramji came and Shanker informed him regarding the arrival of Chunni Lal and let him known what Chunni Lal uttered. Ramji, on hearing this, went to enquire from Chunni Lal. While Ramji was returning from the house of Chunni Lal, accused Chunni Lal and Nathu Lal, armed with Lathis, Followed him and inflicted injuries with Lathis to Ramji in the field of one Shanker S/o Kala. Ramji raised alarm and on hearing the same, Hartan and Nathu reached there and saw accused Chunni Lal inflicting injuries with Lathi to Ramji. On seeing Harthan and Nathu, the accused ran away. Certain other persons, also, reached at the place of the occurrence. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined twelve witnesses. PW 3 Nathu and PW 4 Harthan are the two eye witnesses of the occurrence. PW 2 Bhanji reached at the place of the incident immediately after the occurrence and lodged the First Information Report at Police Station, Rishabdev. PW 1 Teja and PW 8 Moti Singh are the two Motbir witnesses and Ex. 1 and Ex. 2 were prepared in their presence, while the recovery of Lathi, vide Ex. 5, was also made in the presence of PW 8 Moti Singh. PW 5 Shanker and PW 7 Narain are the two witnesses, who have been produced by the prosecution to prove the motive. PW 5 Shanker is, also, the witness who reached at the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident and was informed by PW 4 Harthan that the accused had inflicted injuries with Lathi on the body of deceased Ramji. PW 6 Kala, PW 9 Kanku and PW 10 Laxmi have not supported the prosecution case during the trial and, therefore, they were declared hostile. PW 11 Dr. B. L. Malviya examined the deceased and, also, conducted autopsy on 9-11-1993. PW 12 Durga Narain is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and after completion of the investigation, submitted the challan in the Court. The prosecution has, also, placed reliance over the recovery of the Lathi on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant vide Ex. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as stated at the very out-set. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by this appeal.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no motive with the appellant to kill deceased Ramji. His further contention is that the First Information Report, in the present case, was lodged by PW 2 Bhanji after a delay of about fourteen hours and the delay in lodging the report has not been properly explained. It is, also, contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the F. I. R. has been shown to be registered at Police Station, Rishabdev at about 10.30 a.m. on 9-11-1988, but it reached in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kherwara, on 15-11-88, when it was personally delivered by Suraj Mal L. C. in the Court. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that only interested and relative witnesses have been examined by the prosecution while the independent witness, viz., Shanta, who, as per the prosecution case itself, was present and reached at the place of incident immediately after the occurrence, has not been produced in spite of the fact that he was present in the Court. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Lathi, which was alleged recovered at the instance of the appellant, was neither stained with blood nor it can be said to have been recovered from the exclusive possession of the appellant and the doctor has not supported the prosecution case and no evidence has been produced by the prosecution to prove that the injuries found on the person of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned lower Court. His further contention is that the evidence, produced by the prosecution inspires confidence as the witnesses produced by the prosecution are reliable and uninterested witnesses and their presence at the scene of the occurrence at the time of the incident was most natural as they reside near the place of the occurrence and merely because they are relatives of the deceased, they cannot be said to be interested witnesses, particularly when they are, also, related to the accused. His further contention is that these witnesses have narrated the true version of the incident and no reasons have been assigned why they are telling a lie to implicate the accused-appellant and leaving the real culprits. It has further been submitted that the delay in lodging the report has properly been explained and after the institution of the First Information Report, the investigation started and as such the delay in reaching the F.I.R. in the Court will not affect the prosecution case in any manner.