WALIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment dated December 21, 1971 of the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur where by he convicted the accused appellant under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

(2.) TERSELY put and shorn of all unnecessary details the prosecution case as disclosed at the trial is that the accused-appellant Walia is the cousin of Devla (Since deceased ). On March 29, 1971 Devla (deceased) took his goats and she-goats to the nearby forest and hillocks for grazing. The accused appellant went to the forest for collecting gum. He happened to meet Devla (deceased) and asked Devla to bring the she-goats down the hill, but Devla (deceased) did not pay any heed to his advice. He got infuriated and inflicted two blows with a stick on the person of Devla (deceased) and inflicted one blow with a "suiya" Ex 1 which in fact is a screw drive. This blow was inflicted in the scapular region causing a wound of 1/2", 2-1/2" deep as a result of which Devla (deceased) fell down. He asked Hakriya (PW 3) to fetch his father who came with Mst. Khemani (PW 4), sister of Devla (deceased ). The father of the accused Walia, Panchiya (PW 2) sent Mst. Khemani (PW 4) to the village to inform the villagers and collect them on the scene of occurrence, but for a pretty long time none of them appeared on the scene of occurrence, and as such the accused went to the village and informed the villagers that Devla (deceased) had fallen down from a tree and his father wanted them to be at the place of occurrence. The ocular information of this occurrence was lodged at the Police Station, Salumber by PW 1 Kalia, in which it was mentioned that Devla fell down from a tree and succumbed to injuries. It was also mentioned therein that the informant was giving information about the cause of injury on the basis of information received from Mst. Khemani (PW 4), sister of the deceased Devla. PW 7 Bashir Mohammed, Head Constable reached the spot and prepared the inquest memo Ex P. 3. PW 10 Madanlal, Station House Officer and Investigating Officer of this case came at the Police Station on March 30. 1971. The autopsy on the dead body was performed by PW 8 Dr. Suresh Ohri. The postmortem report is Ex. P. 1. The accused was arrested on April 1, 1971 vide arrest memo Ex. P. 9. The accused after his arrest expressed his desire to get the weapon of offence discovered from the place of its concealment. The information memo is Ex. P. 10. In consequence of the information given by the accused and on the pointing out of the accused, Ex 1 "suiya" screw driver, was got recovered. It was found to be stained with blood, and as such the Investigating Officer seized and sealed the same on the spot. The seizure memo is Ex. P. 8. Ex. 1 was sent to the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist and both of them found it to be stained with human blood. The report of the Chemical Examiner is Ex. P. 14 and the report of the Serologist is Ex P 15. On April 3, 1971 the accused was sent to the Judicial Lock up and on April 5, 1971 he was produced before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Salumber for recording his confessional statement The learned Magistrate after giving a warning and allowing some time to the accused for consideration about the advisability of making a confessional statement ment, recorded the confessional statement given by the accused. The confessional statement is Ex. P. 13. The Police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the accused appellant under S. 302 IPC in the Court of Munsiff- Magistrate, Salumber. The accused retracted from the confession before the learned Magistrate vide Ex. P. lb. The learned Magistrate after taking proceedings under S. 207 A Cr. P. C. committed the accused to the Court of Sessions to stand his trial under Section 302 I. P. C.

(3.) CONSIDERING as a whole the prosecution story may be true but the requirement of the law is that it must be true. There is inevitable a long distance to travel between the words 'may be true" and "must be true" and whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence which we do not find in this case.