STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PATIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Patiya was acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi by his judgment dated November 11, 1974.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that Mst. Seeta developed illicit intimacy with her cousin Ajiya (deceased). He was unmarried. The accused -respondent is brother of Mst. Seeta. She even conceived and for the purpose of abortion she was taken to the well of the deceased. The members of the family of Mst. Seeta came to know of it and she was brought back and was hurriedly married to one Teja. It is said that accused Patiya was enraged on account of such illicit relations having been developed by the deceased with his sister. It is alleged that on May 5, 1974 at about 7.30 P.M. the deceased Ajiya came from the side of Meghwalo -ka -Bas and the accused Patiya came from the opposite direction. The accused gave a knife blow on the chest of Ajiya who tried to run away but the accused followed and struck another blow with knife as a result of which Ajiya fell down and accused Patiya gave Some more blows and then ran away. The occurrence was witnessed by Karan Singh P.W. 14, Kheem Singh P.W. 2, Mst. Wadki P.W. 7 and Mst. Modki P.W. 8. Bheek Singh P.W. 1 reached the spot soon after the occurrence and saw the dead body. He found Shankerlal P.W. 11 at the spot who is sister's son of the deceased. On the basis of the information given by Shankerlal, Bheek Singh proceeded to the police Station Barloot on the same day at 8.30 p.m. and lodged the First Information Report Ex. P.1 at the police Station. The station House Officer Jaswantsingh P.W. 13 recorded the First Information Report and registered the case and thereafter proceeded to village Manora and deputed some persons to keep a watch over the dead body and thereafter he returned at the police station. The accused also went to the police station at about mid night with the blood stained knife Ex. 4 and blood stained clothes. His blood stained knife and clothes were seized. On the next day morning the Station House Officer visited the spot and conducted the spot investigation. Investigation was conducted from the witnesses. Autopsy of the dead body was got conducted and the accused was arrested and was got medically examined. After completion of investigation a charge -sheet was presented against the accused and the accused was ultimately sent for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, who charged the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in all examined 16 witnesses. After hearing arguments the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the offence Under Section 302 IPC. The four eye witnesses, namely, Kheemsingh PW 2, Karansingh PW 14, Wadki PW 7 and Mst. Modki PW 8 did not support the prosecution and the three witnesses relating to evidence of extra judicial confession, namely, Kapura PW 4, Jodha PW 5 and Otaram PW 6 also did not support the prosecution. Learned Additional Sessions Judge then considered the evidence of Shankerlal PW 11 a boy of 15 years. Learned Sessions Judge observed that he is a chance witness and is also related to the deceased, being the sister's son of the deceased, and he has contradicted himself in material particulars. His evidence, therefore, cannot be said to be of sterling worth and it will be extremely unsafe to convict the accused for the capital offence on the solitary testimony of this witness. The learned Sessions Judge then considered the case in the light of the statement of the accused, wherein the accused admitted that he inflicted knife blows on Ajiya. He narrated the circumstances in which he had so acted. The version of the accused was then examined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of the material on record and he found that the version given by him is worthy of credence. In any case the defence taken by the accused is probablised in the circumstances of the case and he found that it appears that the accused acted in exercise of right of private defence. Consequently, the order of acquittal of the accused was recorded. Hence this appeal by the State.

(3.) IN the above view of the matter, in our opinion, this appeal has no force, so it is hereby dismissed.