PANCHU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A flared temper, a sudden quarrel and the unfortunate death of Bharos Singh forms the background of this case. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 7. 11. 2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kota, whereby he has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and further imposed with a fine of Rs. 50/- and to further undergo a sentence of 10 days of rigorous imprisonment in default thereof.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 5. 12. 2000 at 1. 30 P. M. One Hazari Singh a constable informed the Police Station Dadabadi, Kota that Panchu Bheel has assaulted Bharos Singh with a knife and the injured has been taken to the M. B. S. Hospital, Kota. On the basis of this information, the SHO of the Police Station left for the said hospital. At the hospital one Chhiter Singh (P. W. 3) submitted a written report to the SHO wherein he claimed that around 1. 15 p. m. after watching a cricket match at the house of Arjun Singh, he came out of Arjun Singh's house. When he reached near the Water Tank, Panchu Bheel and Bharos Singh were cursing and fighting with each other. He intervened in the quarrel and separated Panchu Bheel. As he went further, Panchu Bheel turned around and again attacked Bharos Singh. This time Panchu Bheel was carrying a knife with which he struck Bharos Singh on the chest. Even after Bharos Singh collapsed, Panchu Bheel continued to strike him. When he rushed to rescue Bharos Singh, panchu Bheel ran away. Heera Singh, Naresh Singh and Manphool Kanwar are the other persons who have seen this incident. Bhanwar Singh, Ramchander Singh and he picked up Bharos Singh and sent him to the hospital. THE said report was sent by the SHO with Govind Ram, a Head Constable to the Police Station, Dadabadi Kota. On the basis of the said report, the Police recorded a formal FIR, FIR No. 477/2000, for offence under Section 307 IPC. However, with the death of Bharos Singh later in the day, the offence of Section 302 IPC was added and the investigation commenced. On the same day, the police arrested the appellant, Panchu Lal. Eventually, the police submitted a charge- sheet against the appellant for offence under section 302 IPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and submitted 15 documents. Although the defence did not examine any witness, it did submit the statement of Chhiter Singh as a defence document. After considering both the oral and the documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Hence this appeal before us.

(3.) FOR these reasons, we partly allow the appeal of appellant and instead of Section 302 IPC we convict him under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to further suffer six months rigorous imprisonment. The impugned judgment of learned trial Judge stands modified as indicated above. _ .