GOVIND SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal impugns the judgment dated January 25, 2003 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Deeg in Sessions Case No. 5/1999, whereby the appellant (herein after described as `accused') was convicted and sentenced as under:- U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer Imprisonment for life and fine in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to further suffer Simple Imprisonment for one year. U/s. 324 IPC: To suffer simple imprisonment for six months and fine in the sum of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) AS per the prosecution story on September 8, 1998 the informant Lokendra Nath submitted a written report at Police Station Deeg stating therein that about 9. 00 AM on the said day when his brother Dhanesh Chand asked his tenant Govind (accused) to pay the due rent, Govind became annoyed and inflicted knife blows on the chest and abdomen of Dhanesh. Injury with knife was also caused on the left hand of the informant by Govind. Dhanesh was immediately removed to hospital, where he was declared dead. Police Station Deeg registered a case under sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC and investigation commenced. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case camp up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Deeg. Charges under Sections 324 and 302 IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the accused claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused as indicated herein above.

(3.) IT is next submitted by the learned counsel that the evidence of Dr. P. L. Das ought to have been rejected outrightly since as per the post mortem report the duration of injuries of the deceased was more than six hours whereas at the trial Dr. P. L. Das deposed that the injuries could be inflicted within six hours. This argument appears to us as devoid on merit. Dr. P. L. Das was neither confronted with the post mortem report nor such question was asked in the cross examination.