DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DINESH Kumar the sole appellant herein, as per prosecution case is said to have intentionally caused death of Karni Ram on 18. 3. 1999 at 08. 00/08. 15 a. m. First Information Report with regard to incident was lodged on the same day within an hour so at 09. 00 a. m. by Karni Ram himself which was recorded by Pane Singh, I. O. who was examined as P. W. 13. Special Report with regard to incident reached to the concerned Magistrate on 18. 3. 1999 at 11. 30 a. m. Karani Ram succumbed to the injuries received by him on 30. 3. 1999. The appellant after trial has since been held guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment as also to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment vide order dated 24. 7. 2001 recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sikar. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) DURING the course of trial, the prosecution examined Dr. T. S. Choudhary as P. W. 5 who had conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Karani Ram. The post-mortem report (Ex. P. 4) reveals following injuries received by Karani Ram. 1. Healed scar 2. 5 cm. in length at left side chest laterally. 2. Healed scar 2 cm. in length at chest posterior left side. 3. Healed scar 1 cm. at left lumber region posterior in length. 4. Healed scar 4 cm. in length at left hypochondrium below coastal margin.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the record of the case. Whereas, we find no merit whatsoever in the first contention of the learned counsel as noted above, alternative contention of the learned counsel for the appellant needs to be accepted even though, half way through. It may be recalled that the occurrence had taken place on 18. 3. 1999 at 08. 00/0815 a. m. The matter was reported to the police by none other than Karani Ram himself within 45 minutes to one hour. It is a case of prompt lodging of the first information report which in itself, would be a circumstance to place reliance upon the same. There is no denial of the fact, and it could not be disputed during the course of arguments that the statement made by Karni Ram which was recorded by the I. O. in presence of a Doctor who, declared Karani Ram fit to make statement could be treated to be a dying declaration. It is well settled by now that the dying declaration if believed would alone be sufficient to sustain conviction even though the same may not be having any corroboration. The Court, looks in for corroboration of dying declaration only as a matter of prudence and not as a matter of law. The dying declaration made by Karani Ram is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Karni Ram while making statement had mentioned that on the eventual day, he was going to Jaipur for his work. When, after he came to Sikar and after selling the milk was going to his village and for which purpose he was standing at Nawalgarh Bus Stand, Sikar and was waiting for a jeep that Dinesh Kumar with whom there was already a dispute and for which reason there was enmity came with a knife in his hand and he gave him four knife blows. The incised wounds found on the body of Karni Ram, as reported by the Doctor were four in number. Dying declaration by Karani Ram as mentioned above, is thus corroborated by medical evidence. WE find no reason whatsoever for eye witnesses Jhabar and Nemi Chand P. W. 3 and 4 respectively making a false statement. It may be true, that the house of Jhabar may be at a distance of 18 kms. but it may be remembered that occurrence is of 08. 00/08. 15 a. m. this is a time for everyone to go to their respective place of work. The presence of Jhabar P. W. 3 at the scene of occurrence appears to be natural. The mere fact that Nemi Chand did not personally know Dinesh Kumar having seen him for the first time would not mean that he had not seen the occurrence. Nemi Chand P. W. 4 appears to be a truthful witness who admitted of coming to know the name of appellant for the first time from Jhabar. Being belonging to the same village of the appellant, if he was to exaggerate the prosecution version, he could easily say that he had know the appellant before the occurrence. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to non-presence of P. W. 3 and P. W. 4 and for that reason rejection of the whole prosecution case has to be repelled.