MADAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MADAN Singh, the appellant herein, was put to trial for having committed murder of Nirma. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Bharatpur, vide judgment dated March 4, 2002 found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him under section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer imprisonment for one month.

(2.) IT is the prosecution case that informant Binda (Pw. 4) on October 15, 2000 submitted a written report at Police Station Bhusawar stating therein that on the said day around 9 AM while his wife Nirma was returning from the field carrying fodder along with her younger sisters Gopali and Vimla, the appellant, who was hiding near the well of Devi Ram, infliced axe-blow on the head of Nirma and cut her neck due to which she died on spot. On being informed by Mohan and Mukesh, he reached on the spot and found his wife dead. On that report a case under section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Dead body of Nirma was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, the appellant was arrested and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2 Bharatpur. Charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 19 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Crpc, the appellant claimed innocence and took the plea of alibi. Three witnesses in defence were examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant criticised the impugned judgment and canvassed that the witnesses who have been relied upon by the learned trial court are close relatives of the deceased and because of their unnatural conduct i. e. they ran away at the time incident instead of saving the deceased and not making effort to save her, their presence, is doubtful at the time of incident. LEARNED counsel further contended that the appellant was at the house of his in-laws from October 14, 2000 to October 16, 2000 and he was not present in the village on the date of incident. According to learned counsel, the conduct of witnesses was quite unnatural. LEARNED counsel took us through the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and urged that no reliance could be placed on such shattered testimony. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and contended that presence of sisters of the deceased at the time of incident is established and in their cross examination nothing favourable to the appellant could be extricated and only because of the fact that they are close relatives of the deceased, their testimony could not be discarded.