PRAHLAD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was placed on trial in Sessions Case No. 37/2001, before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, who convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer six months simple imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution case is as under:- On September 16, 1999 at 2. 30 AM informant Kamal Singh (Pw. 4) submitted a written report (Ex. P-7) at Police Station Gangapur City stating therein that in the intervening night of September 15 and 16, 1999 while he was sleeping on the roof of his house along with his cousin Bhoor Singh (now deceased), Prahlad (appellant) came armed with axe to the roof around 1 AM and started inflicting blows with axe on the neck and hands of Bhoor Singh. When the informant raised alarm the appellant fled away. Bhoor Singh died on the spot and his dead body was lying on the roof. On that report a case under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Dead body was subjected to post mortem, statements of witnesses were recorded, accused was arrested, necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Gangapur City. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed. THE appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. One witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) HAVING carefully tested the statement of Kamal Singh from the point of view of trustworthiness, we do not see any material discrepancy in it. Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however honest a truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category into which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not erode the credibility of witness, material discrepancies do.