SAMPAT LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-8-1987, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Appellant Sampat Lal, along with his brothers Mitha Lal and Shanker Lal, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara under Section 302, I.P.C. for committing the murder of Ram Lal - the brother- in-law of accused Sampat Lal - while he was sleeping in the house of Narain Lal in village Panotiya. The case of the prosecution is that Ram Lal was called by Shanker Lal from his village Panotiya to village Aaspur on 25-2-1986 and in the night inter vening between 25th and 26/02/1986, he was sleeping on a cot in the house of Narain Lal. Accused Sampat Lal was, also, sleeping on the adjoining cot and in the morning of 26-2-1986, Ram Lal was found murdered and the accused was not found present in the village. The cause of murder, according to the prosecution, was that Ram Lal - the deceased - asked his brother-in-law accused Sampat Lal that he was doing no work and, therefore, he would not send his sister to his house, which enraged the accused and while Ram Lal was sleeping in the night, the accused committed his murder. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined eighteen witnesses. Out of these eighteen witnesses, PW 2 Narain, PW 3 Mangi Lal, PW 4 Mangi, PW 5 Rampal and PW 6 Ganesh did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. The accused did not examine any witness in the defence. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial, by his judgment dated 10-8-1987, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C., as stated above, but he acquitted co-accused Mitha Lal and Shanker Lal of the offence under Section 302/34, I.P.C. It is against this judg ment dated 10-8-1987 that the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the prosecution case mainly rests upon the circum stantial evidence. The circumstances, which were relied upon by the prosecution and believed by the learned Sessions Judge, are : (i) the motive with the accused to kill Ram Lal as he was not sending his sister (the wife of the accused) to the house of the accused which enraged the accused; (ii) the accused along with the deceased slept in the house of Narain Lal in the night intervening 25th and 26/02/1986 and on the next day the accused was found absconding; (iii) the extra judicial confession alleged ly made by the accused-appellant before PW 16 Suraj Mal : (iv) the recoveries of the clothes of the accused at the time of his arrest which were found stained with human blood; and (v) the recovery of the blood stained Kulhari (an axe) - the weapon of the offence - on the information and at the instance of the accused.