PUKH RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Pukh Raj, was convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC, for having murdered his own son, Neerkareshwar @ Buliya, aged about 20 -22 years, on 24 -7 -1974 and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, in default to undergo further sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, by his judgment, dated April 16, 1975.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the prosecution case is that the deceased Buliya, was considered as a habitual thief. He was also considered to have committed theft at the house of his own maternal grand aunt Smt. Chandramani, PW 14, therefore, slept at the house of the neighbour of her mother Kanibai, just to see as to whether the deceased commits theft there or not. In the morning of 24 -7 -74, she along with Sohan Lal, the son -in -law of the accused, went to the house of Kanibai and found the accused in -side the house. On the door being knocked, it was opened and it was found that the deceased was having one bag and a water meter with him. The water meter belonged to her mother, Ranibai. Thereafter, both of them took the deceased to the house of Jugraj PW 8. According to Jugraj, his cycle was also stolen away in May, 1974 from the Cottage Ward of M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur. He also suspected the deceased of having committed the theft of his cycle. On 24 -7 -74, he was serving as a Compounder at the T.B. Hospital. Masuriya. He got telephonic message at about 6 -6.30 AM from his brother, Nandkishore. The telephone was attended by the sweeper at the Hospital, who informed him that his brother Nand Kishore, has called him at his house. Thereupon, became to the house at about 7.30 or 8.00 AM. He found Chandramani, his maternal aunt, and Sohan Lal and the deceased Buliya, at his house. They were interrogating the deceased with regard to the theft at the house of Kanibai. Sohanlal asked him to inform the family members of the deceased. Thereafter, Sohanlal himself informed the relation of the deceased and he returned back at about 9.30 or quarter to 10. The accused Pukhraj, came to the house of Jugraj. After some time, the accused told Jugraj as to whether they had conversation with the deceased Buliya. Then the accused asked them to go out of the room so that he may have talk with his son Buliya in seclusion. Thereupon, all of them came out of the room and the accused and his son Buliya remained inside the room. The room was, thereafter, bolted. As per the version given by Jugraj in the first information report Ex. P/6, a cry was heard 'Papa Chaku Mat Maro, Mat Maro. On hearing this cry of Buliya, all of them got up and made an attempt to open the door. But the door could not be opened. Thereafter, Jugraj peeped in side the room through a ventilator. He saw the accused armed with a knife and the deceased lying on the mattress. The room was further knocked. Thereupon the accused unbolted the door and came out with the knife, which was smeared with blood. They entered into the room and saw injuries on the person of the deceased, one of his left cheek and the other on the chest near the heart, which was bleeding. The accused was reprimanded by them. Thereupon, the accused stated that he was tired of the deceased, so he has been done away with. Thereafter, the accused went away along with the knife. The injured Buliya was then brought down stairs and by telephonic message, Ambulance was called. On arrival of the Ambulance, the injured was removed to the hospital. But the injured succumbed to his injuries on the way. Jugraj lodged the report at 11.30 AM. On further interrogation, he gave out the description of the knife. On this report, case under Section 302, IPC, was registered by Shri Ummed Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station, Division 'D', Jodhpur. Two constables were sent to the site for guarding and he himself proceeded to M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur. He found the dead body in the mortupry. He got the post -mortem examination conducted and recovered the clothes of the deceased. Thereafter, he proceeded to the site and conducted spot investigation. He was informed telephonically that the accused is in the police station, so after completing his spot investigation, he went to the police station and arrested the accused at 6 PM on that very day vide arrest memo Ex.P/22. He found blood -stains on the bushirt and pocket of the pant, which the accused was wearing. His clothes were seized and sealed. After the arrest of the accused, the accused gave information regarding the knife. The information was that the knife is lying in the upper Maliya of his residential house. Thereafter, the knife was got recovered by the accused vide memo Ex. P/23. The blood -stained articles seized were sent for Chemical and Serological examination. After completion of investigation, charge -sheet was presented against the accused and the accused was committed for trial. Ultimately, the accused was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur. The charge was framed for the offence under Section 302, IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 17 witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded, in which he denied the prosecution case. Further he admitted that he gave information to the S.H.O. regarding the knife, but he stated that he did not get the knife recovered. One Omprakash was examined in defence as DW 1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge based the conviction of the appellant on the circumstances enumerated by him. In this connection, he stated as under:

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the evidence on record, we may notice the medical evidence. Dr. P. Dayal, PW 10, conducted the Post -mortem examination. He found the following two injuries on the person of the deceased: