BANNEY SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd February 1987, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, in Sessions Case No. 13/86, by which the accused Banney Singh has been convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default, simple imprisonment for one month. The accused, in pursuance to this conviction, is in jail.

(2.) This appeal came up for hearing on 23rd March 1995. On that day, the Lawyers had decided to abstain from work as a mark of protest in relation to a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India, suspending the licence to practice of Shri V.C. Mishra, Chairman, Bar Council of India. As in our opinion, such abstaining from work is unnecessary, we took up consideration of this appeal on merits. We have perused the judgment passed by the Court below. We have carefully scrutinized thy evidence on record and as will be seen from the discussion hereinafter, we are of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) PW/1 Kan Singh is a Panch witness, in whose presence spot-Panchanama and map was prepared. He is also a witness to the Panchnama of the dead body and seizure of the cloth from the dead body. He is not an eye-witness to the incident. PW/2 Jamna, w/o Magga Ram is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. She has deposed that her niece Tulshi came to her running and said that the grand father is being beaten up. By grand father, she meant Sanwta Ram, the deceased. Tulshi also said that Banney Singh is beating the grand father. On hearing this, the witness went to the house of the deceased, along with Tulshi. When both of them reached the house of the deceased, they saw the accused hitting the deceased. She has stated, Sanwta Ram was injured in his face, neck, chest, ribs, shoulders and hands. The cross-examination of this witness does not bring out any contradictions which would require disbelieving of the witness. There is, therefore, no reason to disbelieve this eye-witness.