KANA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a trial for the offence under section 302 1 P. C. the appellant was convicted for that charge and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Feeling dissatisfied by his conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal in this Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated that facts of the case revealed from the first information report and the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses are that the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Bhagirath (P. W. 5) was performed at village-Kheruwala. The bridal procession had come from village-Fajuwala and appellant Kanaram was a member of the bridegroom's party. On March 22, 1974 at 9. 30 A. M. was the ceremony of 'sumathani' (the function of farewell to the bride and the bridal procession), Bhagirath (PW. 5) had employed Sukhbir (P. W. 3) and deceased Nakli and his wife Smt. Premi (P. W. 4) to clean the utensils. At 9. 30 A. M. deceased Nakli and Sukhbir (P. W. 3) were going outside to throw a bucketfull of water used for cleaning the utensils. At that time appellant Kana Ram fired a shot which hit Nakli. Nakli fell on the ground and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. On hearing the noise Nakli's wife and other people reached there. Kana Ram took to heals along with the pistol. Sukhbir (PW. 3) immediately rushed to the Police Station Sadul-sahar and lodged the report Ex. P/9 before S. H. O. Bhanwar Lal (P. W. 6 ). Meanwhile Budha ram (P. W. 2) and a few others chased the appellant and succeeded in apprehending him. The appellant is said to have damaged the pistol by striking it against a stone. Bhanwar Lal (P. W. 6) S. H. O. went to the site and arrested the accused appellant. He ceased the pistol and the licence in the name of the appellant. The pistol was sealed. Bhanwarlal (P. W. 6) S. H. O. then went to the site of occurrence and saw the dead body of Nakli, He conducted necessary investigation at the site. Dr. Jaswant Singh conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Nakli and opined that the cause of death was pistol injury sustained by him. The pistol, cartridge and the blood stained clothes of Nakli were sent to Forensic Expert and Chemical Examiner.

(3.) SO far as the cause of death is concerned there is no dispute. The appellant has admitted that bullet discharged from his pistol hit Nakli. Cause of death of Nakli being the pistol shot injury of which the appellant was the author, the pertinent question to be determined is as to whether it was a voluntary act of the appellant with an intention to cause the murder of Nakli or the pistol went off accidentally and unfortunately hit the deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor has laid much emphasis on the opinion of the expert that the chances of the pistol going off accidentally were not much. It is relevant to note that the prosecution case is that after the incident the appellant had damaged the pistol by striking it against stone. If that was so, then the pistol seized and sent to the Forensic Expert was not in the same position in which it was at the time of the incident. It is also to be noted that the expert has not totally ruled out the possibility of the pistol going off accidentally.