SITARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This jail appeal has been filed against the judgement dated 11-8-94 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 216/93, whereby he found the appellant guilty for the offence under Sec. 304 part II IPC and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. one thousand and in default to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the appellant had given his licenced gun to one Kishore from whom Ratanlal, deceased, took away that gun. On 3-10-93, the appellant went to the house of Ratanlal, deceased, situated in village Lakshpura and demanded his gun but the deceased Ratanlal refused to give back that gun. Thereupon, it is alleged that appellant hurled abuses and came out of the house of Ratanlal, deceased, who followed him. It is alleged that outside Ratanlal's house on the way, appellant got infuriated and dealt a 'ballam' blow on formers chest. Ratanlal fell down after sustaining punctured wound on his right chest cavity and bleeded profusely. Ratanlal's family members tried hard to take Ratanlal to hospital, but since there was no means of transportation, they could not do so Ratanlal died next day morning. PW 1 Bheru lodged an oral report of the incident at Police Station Rawat Bhata on 4-10-93. The doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination found a punctured wound in the fifth intercostal space along with sharp cutting of fifth rib at its medial end. He also found that his right lung was punctured, which was corresponding to the chest injury. The doctor opined that the cause of death was excessive external and internal hemorrhage leading to shock and death.

(3.) After usual investigation, challan was filed in the court of learned MJM, Rawatbhata, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. The appellant was charged for the offence u/s. 302 IPC. He denied the indictment and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as sixteen prosecution witnesses. The appellant denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and asserted that he has been falsely implicated. However, he did not adduce any evidence in his defence.