DEV KARAN ALIAS DEVA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused-appellant has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Kota by his judgment dated 27th August, 1993 for the offence Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine he has to go under a further rigorous imprisonment for two months. Against this conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this jail appeal. As he could not engage any counsel Shri Jinesh Jain was appointed as Amics Curiae, who has argued the case on behalf of the appellant.

(2.) THE incident out of which the case arises took place on 21. 2. 1991 at about 5. 00 p. m. in the town of Kota in Sakatpura area where there are some shops. The deceased Ramesh had gone to the shop of P. W. 1 Murli Nai for shave and it was at that time that a knife wound was inflicted upon him as a result of which subsequently he died. According to P. W. 1 Murli, owner of the shop, he had at the time of the incident gone to fetch water as his water had been taken by Dr. Gyanesh and on his return he found Ramesh smeared with blood standing near the gate of his shop in an injured condition. He made enquiries from P. W. 15 Dr. Gyanesh Sharma but he could not give any information. He and Rajendra Kumar Gupta P. W. 7 were sent on Dr. Gyanesh's scooter to report the matter at the police station, where Rajendra gave information to the police, P. W. 1 Murli has also stated that he informed at the house of Ramesh about the incident.

(3.) ON a plain reading of these statements we find a number of contradictions. According to P. W. 4 Ram Gopal the dying declaration had been first made at the shop before the witnesses then before the police at the shop itself and then in the vehicle on way to hospital. According to P. W. 12 Smt. Lad Kanwar she already knew who was the assailant as Mahendra had give out the name to her. According to her at the shop of Barber, Ramesh did not say any thing as to how and by whom he was injured and it was only in the vehicle on way to hospital that he told that Dev Karan had inflicted blows. There were so many other persons who were present in the shop but no one has been examined in support of the dying declaration made by the deceased. Thus, there is a testimony only of the related witnesses, namely father and wife and no one has come forward to support the dying declaration. When the witnesses are related it becomes all the more important that their statements should be free from contradictions and should be such which can be said testimony of truthful witnesses. This ingredient is missing in this case. The contradictions in the statements of P. W. 4 Ram Gopal and P. W. 12 Lad Kanwar have been seen above. Further the silence of Dr. Gyanesh P. W. 15 and P. W. 1 Murli and other neighbours also weaken the prosecution case. P. W. 5 Mahendra has been examined as a witness but he has been questioned only about panchnama of the dead body of Ramesh Chand and no question has been put to him as to how he came to know who inflicted injuries on Ramesh.