PRABHU DAYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31-3-87, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 380, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C.; and five years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 380, I.P.C.

(2.) Appellant Prabhu Dayal, who was the husband of deceased Smt. Bhajno, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, for committing the house lurking trespass in night and committing the murder of Smt. Bhajno in her house by inflicting grievous injuries. He was, also tried for committing the theft of the gold ornaments, viz., ear-rings and bangles belonging to Smt. Bhanjo. The case of the prosecution is that in the intervening night between 9th and 10/04/1986, Smt. Bhajno was found murdered in her house. P.W. 1 Smt. Baga Bai - a neighbour of Smt. Bhaj no - found Smt. Bhajno dead and informed PW. 3 Mani Ram and PW 4 Dr. Sukhdeo Raj about this fact. The neighbours saw the deadbody of Smt. Bhajno and reported the matter to the Police at Police Station, Sri Karanpur. An F.I.R. was registered and the investigation ensued. During the investigation, it was revealed that the accused was the person who committed the murder of Smt. Bhajno his wife. On 14-4-86, the accused was arrested and on his information and at his instance, the recovery of a Gandasa - the weapon of offence - the shirt and trousers of the accused, were made. The gold ornaments, namely, ear-rings and two gold bangles belonging to the deceased, were recovered from the house of the accused on his information and at his instance. The prosecution, in support of its case examined fourteen witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above, but, however, he was acquitted of the offence under Section 460, I.P.C. as according to the learned trial Court the prosecution failed to prove this offence against the accused-appellant. It is against this judgment dated 31-3-87, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 380, I.P.C. that the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and the case of the prosecution solely rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the circumstances believed by the trial Court are not sufficient to complete the chain and to prove that it was the accused-.appellant and the appellant alone who committed the crimes and these circumstances do not conclusively prove the guilt of the accused-appellant. His further contention is that even the recoveries, which have been relied-upon by the prosecution and believed by the trial Court, do not inspire confidence as they were not made on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it has, also, not been proved that the articles alleged to have been recovered from the accused were kept in the Malkhana of Police Station, Sri Karanpur in the same sealed conditions in which they were deposited and remained as such till they reached the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the blood samples of Kashmiri Lal, Subhash Chand and Dharampal were taken for determination of their blood-groups but no sample of the blood of the appellant was taken and sent for determination of his blood-group to connect him with the crime. It has further been contended that the medical evidence, also, does not support the prosecution case. It has, also, been contended that the independent witnesses to the recoveries have not been produced and only the relative and interested witnesses have been produced by the prosecution. The learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Court below.