RAMLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal of Ram Lal is direct against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Kota dated 1 -12 -1971, whereby tie accused was convicted of the charge under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of Omprakash and Ram Narain.

(2.) THE charge against the accused was that on May 31, 1971 at about 12 A.M. the accused came from his village Ganeshpura to village Humav which was situated at a distance of hardly 2 furlongs from his village He was armed with kulhari. The accused sister Kalyani used to live in village Humav. Kalyani when saw her brother coming with a kulhari in his hand rushed back to her house. Omprakash a boy of 8 years came across the accused in a lane. It is said that accused Ram Lal dealt a kulhari blow on the head of Omprakash with the result that he died of that injury. He them entered the house of Ram Narain who was ailing and sitting on his cot. The accused gave a kulhari blow on the head of Ram Narain also and then ran away with his axe to his village. While he was coming back to the village he threw his axe in the jungle. A report was lodged of thin incident at the Police Station Morak within two hours of the incident. The accused was arrested by the Head Constable PW 3 Shri Yashwant Rai from his house where he was lacked by the villagers in a kotha. The post mortem on the dead body of Omprakash was performed by Dr. Rameshwar Vijay, whose statement was recorded in 'he committing court and brought on the record as Ex. P 11. The Doctor found one injury on the head of the deceased. The size of which was 3' x 1' x 1 1/2'. In the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to head injury and shock. Ram Narain was also examined by he same doctor and he was found to have sustained a compound fracture 3' x 1/4' x 1' on the scalp right temporal bone. In the opinion of the doctor this injury was also caused by blunt weapon. The brain matter was found coming out of the wound and chips of bone were also seen protruding. Ram Narain survived the injury and died after about 2 months, but his body was not subjected to any post mortem examination nor did the prosecution lead any evidence to prove the cause of the death of Ram Narain.

(3.) THE prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and brought on the record as evidence the statement of the Doctor, recorded by the committing Magistrate.' The accused in his examination under Section 342 Cr. P C admitted to have inflicted the bead injury with his axe on the head of the deceased Ompraksh but refused to have caused any injury to Ram Narain. The accused pleaded that it was in insane state of mind that he caused injury to Omprakash. He however did not produce any defence evidence.