BHANWAR SINGH SON OF MANGU SINGH @ UDARAM, BY CASTE RAJPUT, R/O MEHRASAR CHACHERA, TEHSIL SARDARSAHAR, DISTRICT CHURU Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant jail appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20/04/2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Churu (Rajasthan) in Sessions Case No.42/2009, convicting appellant-accused Bhanwar Singh under Sec. 302 of Penal Code and sentencing him for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000.00 and further to undergo three months imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

(2.) Heard rival submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant has turned hostile and there is no positive evidence to connect the accused-appellant with the alleged crime. Prosecution has failed to establish motive and recovery has also not been made on the instant of the accused-appellant and it has been alleged that the infliction of Kalhari was made, while the deceased was sleeping, but no blood stains have been found on the cot, so the story of the prosecution is false and nearby several other houses are said to be there, but none other than the complainant turned up at the spot, which also makes the story of the prosecution doubtful and there was no discontent between the spouse, hence why a husband will suddenly rise in the night hours and blow a fatal weapon injury upon his own wife, hence the story of the prosecution is based on conjectures and there is no evidence against the accused-appellant, he has further argued that Smt. Manisha daughter of the accused and deceased was bit vindictive, since her husband was wrecking ill-will to grab property of accused person, so, she has falsely implicated her father, he has also contended that the alleged injury is singular, but the sentence is very harsh and has submitted to allow the appeal and acquit the accused-appellant. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has contended that prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case. Manisha PW.10 daughter of the deceased and accused, Bhanwar Singh, has given her actual evidence, because she was also there, when appellant gave a fatal axe blow to his own wife, on observing the same, she cried for the help and after hearing her scream, complainant also came there, Manisha is a major married daughter of deceased, who has got no reason to say anything adverse falsely against her own father, her statements cannot be discarded, because she has conveyed ocular version of what she witnessed, so, there is no flaw in the impugned judgment, hence appeal be rejected.

(3.) Heard rival submissions of both the sides and carefully examined the record. Ex.P.14 F.I.R, which has been lodged by Khiv Ram narrates as under:-