SUBH RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This jail appeal has been preferred by Subh Ram against his conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu vide Judgement dated 3-4-1991.

(2.) The occurrence took place on 17-6-87 in village Dhani Alayla in which two persons Smt. Kamla (28) and her daughter Km. Guddi (6 months) lost their lives. The prosecution case is that the accused Sub Ram husband of Smt. Kamla and father of Km. Guddi had caused their death by inflicting Gandasi blows. The first information report was lodged by Ram Nath (PW-1), father of accused on 18-8-87 in which it was stated that Subh Ram reached his Dhani at about 8.00 AM on 17-6-87 and in the evening Ramnath came to know about the murder of Smt. Kamla and Guddi. On this report a case under Section 302 I.P.C. was registered in Police Station Taranagar. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the challan. Charges under Sections 302, 404 I.P.C. were framed against accused Subh Ram. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined Ramnath (PW-1), Dhan Singh (PW-2), Jaikaran (PW-3), Kirta Ram (PW-4), Dr. Hanuman Singh (PW-5), Kashi Ram (PW-6), Jamna (PW-7), Banwarilal (PW-8), Jamna Ram (PW-9), Bhadar Ram (PW-10), Bhanwar Lal (PW-11), Ami Chand (PW-12), Mali Ram (PW-13), Ramavtar (PW 14), Mange Ram (PW-15) and Karni Singh (PW-16). Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. stated that the witnesses have given false statements. He denied the recovery of Gandasi at his instance. His version is that he wanted to have the field where the occurrence is said to have taken place and that his brother and nephews did not like that he should get that field and because of that enmity he has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused examined Dhula Ram (DW-1) and Mala Ram (DW-2) in defence. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments of both the parties, acquitted the accused under Section 404 I.P.C. but convicted him under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced as above.

(3.) We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State-respondent. It is not in dispute that Kamla and Guddi had sustained injuries by sharp edged weapon and had met homicidal death.