BIRBAL RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-7-89, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1. Sri Ganganagar by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offences under Sees. 302 and 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 400/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 326 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Appellant Birbal Ram was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. I, Sri Ganganagar, for the offences under Sees. 302 and 307 IPC for committing the murder of his wife Smt. Lichrna and making an attempt on the life of his father-in-law Dewa Ram. The case of the prosecution, which resulted in the trial and conviction of the accused-appellant is that Smt. Lichma was married to appellant Birbal and out of this wed-lock, a daughter aged about five years was born to her. About three months prior to the date of the incident, the accused gave beatings to Smt. Lichma and turned her out from his house. On the fateful day, the deceased was living with her father. On 6-4-87, at about 12.00 in the noon, the accused went to his in-laws house armed with a sword. At that time Dewa Ram, Ram Swaroop, Smt. Chawli and the other members of the family were in the house. Accused Birbal Ram, just after entering into the house of his in-laws, started giving sword blows to his father-in-law Dewa Ram. The other members of the family, including Smt. Lichma (the wife of the accused) ran away. When Smt. Lichina reached in front of the house of Moti Ram Bawni, the accused inflicted injuries by the sword on the person of Smt. Lichma and due to which she fell down. Thereafter the accused dragged his wife to the open place and inflicted injuries by the word and killed her. Smt. Lichma received injuries on her thigh, face, head and other parts of the body. The case of the prosecution, further, is that the accused was a man of loose character and used to ask his wife Smt. Lichma to bring some girl for him and when she refused to acceed to his test she was given beatings and turned out of the house. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined seven witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. The case of the accused, in defence, is that his wife Smt. Lichma was a lady of easy virtues and had left the house of the accused and started living with her parents. He went to bring her back to his house. His father-in-law Dewa Ram was in the house and was preparing earthen plant-pots and when he entered inside the/room, he found Smt. Lichma in a compromising position with one Kishna Ram Jat. On seeing him, Smt. Lichma took-up her S al war and ran naked. Kishan Lal Jat, also, ran away. He lost his balance of mind and took-up the sword hanging in the room and followed his wife. His father-in-law Dewa Ram, in order to save his daughter Lichma, grappled with him, due to which Dewa Ram received injuries. No lady was inside the house of his father-in-law. After getting rescued himself from his father-in-law, he followed his wife and inflicted injuries to her with the sword. The learned trial Court did not believe the defence version and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC. He, however, acquitted the appellant of the offence under Sec. 307 IPC for making an attempt on the life of his father-in-law Dewa Ram but convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Sec. 326 IPC.

(3.) No dispute has been raised, and rightly so, by the learned counsel for the appellant so far as the taking place of the occurrence is concerned. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused-appellant found his wife Smt. Lichma in a compromising position with Kishan Lal Jat and he lost his control and mind and in a grave and sudden provocation he inflicted injuries by the sword on the person of Smt. Lichma and, therefore, the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC are wholly illegal and the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance over Kanti Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab. He has further submitted that the appellant never inflicted any injury to his father-in-law Dewa Ram but it was only on account of grappling of Dewa Ram with the appellant that he received injuries and, therefore, the conviction and the sentences of the appellant for the offence under Sec. 326 IPC are, also, wholly uncalled-for and the appellant deserves acquittal on this account, also. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and submitted that it was not on account of any grave and sudden provocation that the appellant inflictedinjuries to his wife Smt. Lichma but it was a-premeditated act of the appellant as he came to his in-lawsT house armed with a sword and first inflicted injuries to his father-in-law Dewa Ram and thereafter killed his wife Smt. Lichma.