GANESH LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ILLICIT relations between Ratan Lal and Smt. Kailashi, the wife of Ganesh Lal were well known in village Kheruna. On July 30, 1999 Ratan Lal was found murdered in the house of Ganesh Lal. Information in regard to murder of Ratan Lal was communicated by an unknown person over telephone to Krishna Kant. SHO Police Station Nainwa on July 30, 1999 at 5. 30 AM, who rushed to the place of occurrence and found dead body of Ratan Lal in the room belonging to Ganesh Lal. Sukh Lal, the father of Ratan Lal who was present there, submitted a written report wherein it was stated that his son left the house after taking meals at 8 PM on the previous night and did not return to the house. On being searched he came to know that he was murdered and his dead body was lying in the house of Ganesh. On the basis of said report case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Ganesh Lal, the appellant herein, along with Hari Narain @ Harnarayan, Smt. Kailashi and Sunder Lal, were placed on trial in Sessions Case No. 39/2001, before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bundi, who vide judgment dated October 18, 2001 acquitted co-accused Hari Narain @ Harnarayan, Smt. Kailashi and Sunder Lal, but convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to further suffer six months imprisonment.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently criticised the impugned finding and urged that the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of suspicion. There is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution is very feeble in character. It is alternatively contended that even if it is found that the appellant is guilty, charge under Section 302 IPC is not made out against him. Elaborating his submissions learned counsel canvassed that on the basis of the facts of the case, this possibility cannot be ruled out that seeing his wife with the deceased in a compromising position, the appellant would have lost self control and killed the deceased. The case of appellant thus comes within the purview of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.

(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of the instant case we are of the firm view that the appellant had caused the injuries on the person of deceased while he deprived of the power of self-control by the grave and sudden provocation and his case comes clearly under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC and he is, therefore, guilty under Section 304 Part I IPC only.