BHANA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a jail appeal preferred by Bhana, who was convicted under f Sec. 326 IPC. by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara by his judgment dated Nov. 6, 1974 and was sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 501/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Mr. Bhandari has assisted this Court by appearing on behalf of the appellant.

(2.) The prosecution story as disclosed by the evidence of Ratanlal PW 2 is that the appellant Bhana entered the house of the complainant at about 12 noon on April 17, 1974 and went inside the room where logs of wood were kept to hide himself. Ratanlal asked him to get out of the room on which Bhana appellant took up a Kulhari, which was lying nearby in that room and inflicted a blow on the head of Ratanlal, who became unconscious and was carried to Bhilwara hospital for treatment. Ratanlal remained as an indoor patient at the Bhilwara hospital for 55 days. A first information report in respect of the occurrence was lodged by Jamna Lal PW 3 at 12.30 p.m. on that very day at the Police Station, Phoolia Kala. It was stated in the first information report, which is Ex. P/6 on record, that on hearing the news that somebody had struck Ratanlal with an axe, Jamnalal went to the house of Ratanlal who is his uncle's son and found that Ratanlal was lying on a cot with a wound on his head and was profusely bleeding and on making an inquiry from the people who had collected on the spot, Jamnalal came to know that Bhana appellant was seen running out of the house of Ratanlal with a Kulhari in his hand towards Bamno-ki-gali by Raj Narain and it appeared there from that the appellant had caused the injury on the head of Ratanlal. A challan was put up in the Court of Munsiff Magistrate, Bhilwara, who committed the appellant for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Bhilwara. After holding the trial the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Mr. Bhandari submitted that the solitary testimony of Ratanlal PW 2 should not be believed as he has contradicted himself from his earlier police statement. I have read the statement of PW 2 Ratanlal with care and attention and so far as the essential and material part of his statement is concerned, there is hardly any variation between his police statement and his testimony in Court. As already stated above, Ratanlal clearly stated that Bhana appellant had entered his house and was hiding in the room where logs of wood very lying and that when Ratanlal objected to his hiding there and asked him to get out of the house, he picked up a Kulhari, which was lying nearby and inflicted a blow with it on the head of Ratanlal. Ratanlal PW 2 has consistently named Bhana appellant as his assailant. Moreover, the statement of Raj Narain PW 4, who has stated that at about 12 or 12-30 in the noon he saw appellant Bhana going out from the house of Madho Dhobi i.e. father of Ratanlal with a Kulhari in his hand and that he ran away towards Bamno-ki-gali and threw the Kulhari near the wall of the house of Jagannath Dhobi. Raj Narain has stated that at that time he was standing outside his flour mill, which is situated nearby, PW 6 Tejmal has stated in bis cross-examination that a man standing outside the flour mill of Raj Narain could very well see a person coming out of the house of Madho Dhobi, which is situated at about 100 paces from the flour mill of Raj Narain. Thus the testimony of Ratanlal that the appellant inflicted a blow on his head with an axe, when be asked him to get out of the room in his house is fully corroborated from the statement of Raj Narain PW 4 who saw the appellant running out of the house of Ratanlal with an axe in his hand at about the same time when the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is also to be noted in this respect that the first information report was lodged within half an hour of the occurrence and the name of Bhana appellant was mentioned there in as the assailant on the basis of the information collected by Jamnalal on the spot. Thus there is sufficient corroboration of the testimony of Ratanlal that it was the appellant Bhana, who had struck him with an axe on his head. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, justified in placing reliance upon his testimony for holding that it was Bhana who had inflicted a blow with an axe on his head.