STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MINA S/O BHIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This State appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.7.1978 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur whereby he has acquitted the respondent of the offence charged against him.

(2.) Succinctly stated the prosecution story is that one Mina s/o Bhima r/o village Kendriyabor lodged an FIR at Police Station on 21.11.1977 at 1.30 P.M. with the allegation that he had quarrelled with his wife during the preceding night and killed his wife Mst. Fingi with an axe. On this report, police registered a case under sectionec. 302 IPC and started investigation. The 'Kulhari' lying near the bed of Mst. Fingi was recovered by the police vide Ex.P. 1, blood' stained 'Dhoti' of the accused was recovered vide Ex.P. 2 and the blood stained clothes of Mst. Fingi were recovered vide Ex.P. 3. The dead-body was sent for post-mortem examination. The autopsy on the dead body of Mst. Fingi was conducted by Dr. Jhala vide Ex.P. 4. The police submitted. challan against the accused under section. 302 IPC. Ultimately the case was committed to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Udaipur. Against the accused respondent charge under Section 302 IPC was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined four witnesses. In defence, the accused did not examine any witness. However, in his statement under section. 313 Cr.PC he denied the allegation that he killed his wife and stated that he has been falsely implicated. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after completion of the trial acquitted the accused-respondent. Being aggrieved with the judgment of the learned trial court, the State has preferred this appeal praying that the accused-respondent may kindly be convicted and sentenced.

(3.) Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the learned trial court has erred in acquitting the accused-respondent since the circumstances of extra judicial confession, recovery of blood stained Dhoti and recovery of axe stand proved against the accused-respondent.