BHAGGA ALIAS BHAGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was indicated before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 2) Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 58/2001 for having committed murder of his pregnant wife Sohan Bai,. Learned Judge vide Judgment dated October 23, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 IPC to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- , in default to further suffer one months simple imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution story in nutshell is like this:- On April 2, 1999 Jiyauddin Head Constable (Pe. 2), while he was posted at Police Post Chaumahla PS Gangdhar, received information that injured Sohan Bai (since deceased) was admitted to Chaumahla Hospital. Jiyauddin rushed to the Hospital and recorded Parcha Bayan of Sohan Bai (Ex. P-3) at 11 Am wherein she stated that while she was filling the trolly with sand at river Kali Sindh, her husband (appellant) came over there and asked her if she wanted to reside with him or not? Sohan Bai, who was pregnant and not in talking terms with the appellant, told him that she will reside with him still the appellant inflicted knife blow on the abdomen of Sohan Bai and fled away. On the basis of said parcha bayan formal FIR No. 58/1999 was registered for the offences under Section 307 IPC and investigation commenced. After the death of Sohan Bai Section 302 IPC was added. Autopsy on the dead body was performed. Appellant was arrested, necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 2) Jhalawar. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed. THE accused denied the charge and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 12 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions decided the case as indicated above.

(3.) IT is well settled that the dying declaration can be acted upon without corroboration. If the court is satisfied that dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it but the court must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imaginations.