SATYA NARAYAN Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the Judgment and order of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 24-7-1981 convicting the accused appellant under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) On 20th Nov., 1980 one Satya Narayan son of Shri Keshar Lal Balai, resident of Kalyanji-ka-Rasta, Jaipur lodged a written report at Police station, Kotwali Jaipur to the effect that accused appellant Satya Narayan used to stay in his neighbour-hood and he started throwing water upon his 'Kaki', who warned him, but the accused started abusing her. On hearing the filthy abuses, the complainant, his wife, daughter, son and brother Ramgopal came there and some other tenants had also collected. The accused appellant gave beatings with iron rod to the complainant and his brother Ramgopal, as a result of which they sustained injuries. The accused ran away from the scene and went to his house. Bhima and Satya Narayan alias Kaliya went to Kotwali for lodging the report. Keshar Lal and others remained standing at the scene of occurrence. Accused appellant came out from his house with a knife and attacked the complainant's brother and Magan Lal. Ram Gopal tried to save himself and the knife hit complainant's father Keshar lal and as result the intestine of his father came out. He was taken to the Police Station by Ram Gopal and from there to the Hospital, where he died. The Police registered a case against the accused appellant under Sections 307, 326, 147, 323 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. The Police after usual investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused. The Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused appellant under Sec. 302 I.P.C. The accused appellant denied the prosecution allegation and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses. The accused appellant in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution case and submitted a written statement. Two witnesses were examined in defence. After trial the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as aforesaid. It is against the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant that the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has seriously contended that the approach of the learned Sessions Judge in appreciating the prosecution evidence is not in accordance with law. All the so-called eye-witnesses are interested being the relations of the deceased and therefore, their evidence should have been examined with closure scrutiny. The prosecution has not come out with true version of the genesis of the occurrence. The prosecution has failed to explain the injuries of the accused appellant. No blood was found at the place of incident and the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the defence in proper perspective.