MITHA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated Dec. 15, 1975 whereby the accused-appellant Mitha Ram was convicted under Sec. 307, Penal Code and. sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo two months simple imprisonment.

(2.) The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that Chandra Ram, father of the accused Mitha Ram was murdered by Deva Ram somewhere in the year 1964. Deva Ram was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life He was released on May 25, 1975 from jail after having undergone the imprisonment for life. It was alleged that the accused appellant Mitha Ram bore ill-will against Deva Ram and with a view to take revenge for the murder of his father he deliberately and intentionally on Oct. 9, 1975, at about 1215 p m. tried to struck down Deva Ram with a view to kill him. Injured Deva Ram was walking on the foot-path on his right aids when the accused-appellant Mitha Ram came in the jeep No R.J.C. 0231. It is said that he was struck down by the jeep and he received multiple injuries. The version of the accused-appellant, however, is that while he was going in the jeep a dog suddenly came in front of the jeep and while trying to avoid the running over of the dog, the brakes of the jeep failed, and struck Deva Ram. It was also contended by him that some mechanical defects developed in the brakes as a result of which the brakes did not work, and resulted in this accident. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the explanation given by the accused-appellant was hot worthy of credence and that the offence squarely fell within the ambit of Sec. 307, IPC, and he accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated above.

(3.) On behalf of the accused-appellant it was contended that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has fallen into an error of law in convicting the accused appellant on the solitary statement of the injured PW 1 Deva Ram. It was further contended that the three eye-witnesses, namely PW 2 Ganesh, PW 3 Chhaganlal and PW 4 Sakka did not support the prosecution story, and were declared hostile at the request of the prosecution. It was also contended that the statement of Jagat Singh PW 5, who is a Mechanical Inspector in the Police Department, also does not inspire the confidence of the Court as he has made two reports. PW 6 Dr. B. S. Mathur has examined the injured PW 1 Deva Ram and found the following injuries on his person :