MATHURA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS Mathuralal and Mohanlal were tried with 19 of their co-accused for intentionally causing murder of Lal Singh and causing injuries to number of persons. In the resultant trial whereas, 19 co-accused of the appellants were acquitted, appellants Mathuralal and Mohanlal have been held guilty under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. This order of conviction and sentence was passed against them by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 2) Jhalawar and it is against this order that the appellants have filed this joint appeal.

(2.) IN the context of limited controversy involved in the case it will not be necessary to give facts in entirety. The brief facts which thus need a necessary mention reveal that the occurrence lading to death of Lal Singh and injuries to others had taken place at 7. 00 AM on 11. 8. 99 regarding which FIR Ex. P1 was lodged by Devi Singh on the same date at 9. 00 A. M.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. Whereas we find considerable merit in the first contention of the learned counsel as noted above, we do not find any merit in so far as non-applicability of section 302 IPC is concerned. Be it in the medico legal report or in the post mortem report the doctor found only one injury on the person/dead body of Lal Singh which was caused by a sharp edged weapon. The doctor nowhere stated in the examination in chief that one injury sustained by Lal Singh could be a result of two blows. It is only in the cross examination that the doctor stated that the injury found on the person of Lal Singh could be result of two blows but he then qualified the aforesaid statement by saying that the blows in any case had to be given by a sharp edged weapon. Mohan Lal as per consistent version was armed with a lathi. Once no injury has been found on the person/dead body of Lal Singh, that might have been caused by blunt weapon, participation of this accused becomes highly doubtful. It is too well settled that even if the ocular version may be consistent but if the same may militate or be in sharp contrast to the medical evidence, it has to be ignored. Mohan Lal, in our considered view has to be given benefit of doubt and acquitted. So ordered. In so far as, Mathuralal is concerned, his involvement is fully established. The injuries described by doctor and which have been attributed to appellant Mathuralal were on a vital part of the body. It was by a sharp edged weapon. It was a serious blow resulting into fracture and separating the head even though partially in two parts. The offence committed by the appellant Mathuralal looking at the nature of injury and further that it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, has to fall within section 302 IPC. There is no merit whatsoever in the appeal preferred by Mathuralal.