STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BASANTILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 04.07.1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Sessions Case No. 71/1993, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 449 IPC.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 01.11.1992 at about 03:30 PM, PW -1 Mahendra Kumar S/o Jeewaji had filed a written report Ex.P/1 alleging that in the night, when he was sleeping with his father and other family members in his house, at about 12:00 AM, he suddenly awoke after hearing cries of his father and saw Basantilal S/o Homaji running from his house, who was wearing white shirt. On seen this he raised alarm that Basantilal was running after assaulting his father. Upon hearing his cries Narainji S/o Poonamdassji, who was coming from the house of Amraji also saw one person wearing white shirt running. Thereafter Anoop Lal Daragi, Shantilal Kashot and Kadwaram Ladha also reached the spot, to whom he informed that Basantilal has assaulted his father with an axe. He become unconscious and admitted in Ward No. 19 -C of General Hospital, Udaipur. On receiving this report, the police has registered the FIR No. 51/1992 at Police Station, Panarwa, District Udaipur for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. However, thereafter, Jeewaji father of PW -1 died in the hospital at about 11:00 PM on 02.11.1992, therefore, the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC has also been added. The police after investigation filed charge -sheet against the accused respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 449 and 302 IPC and after committal the case, the trial court has also framed charges for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) ASSAILING the judgment dated 04.07.1994, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in disbelieving the testimonies of witnesses PW -1 Mahendra Kumar S/o Jeewaji and PW -5 Panubai who have specifically stated in their statements that they had seen the accused respondent assaulting the deceased with an axe. It is also argued that the other prosecution witnesses viz. PW -2 Narain and PW -3 Amara Ram had also seen the accused respondent running after assaulting the deceased. However, the trial court has also erred in disbelieving the said witnesses. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that the weapon of offence i.e. axe was also recovered at the instance of the accused respondent and the same is proved by the testimonies of PW -9 Laxma and PW -10 Valji, but the trial court without appreciating the said evidence has illegally disbelieved the recovery of the axe. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that the other witnesses viz. PW -4 Shantilal and PW -6 Kaduwaram have also corroborated the testimony of PW -1 Mahendra Kumar and PW -5 Panubai, but the trial court has also not considered the evidence of the said witnesses and has illegally acquitted the accused respondent.