LAWS(RAJ)-1977-11-14

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. NANU ALIAS KISHAN

Decided On November 11, 1977
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Appellant
V/S
Nanu Alias Kishan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State Government is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Shri Ganganagar dated 13-4-70 acquitting the respondent Nanu alias Kishna of an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of one Sukhram by an axe and of an offence under section 323 Penal Code for having voluntarily caused simple injury to Budhram P. W. 5 by striking him with the blunt side of the axe.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on the night of 30-7-1967 at about 11 P. M., the deceased Sukhram was sleeping in the open space in front of the Kutia of Budhram P. W. 5, a Sadhu of rohi of Village Bhagsar. It is also alleged that his wife Mst. Sugni P. W. 6 and their two children, Budhram P. W. 5 Sanval P. W. 8 and Pani P. W. 7 and Rukma and Ram Pyari were also sleeping near by. The accused Nanu alias Kishna came armed with an axe and struck Sukhram a blow on the neck as a result of which he died instantaneously. When Budhram who had just gone to sleep, was awakened by the noise, the accused challenged and attacked him and delivered a blow' on his hand. The accused then ran away from there. The First Information Report Ex. P. 1 was lodged by P. W. 5 Budhram at P. S. Sadar Sri Ganganagar some 10 miles away the next morning, i. e. on 31-7-67 at 8 A. M., naming the accused Nanu alias Kishna to be the assailant. The Investigation Officer lnderjeet Singh P. W. 11 reached the spot and began investigation which was completed by Mukhtiar Singh P. W. 3. The accused is said to have absconded and was not apprehended till 9-4-69 i.e. for about 2 years. Upon the information Ex. P. 9 given by the accused on 16-4-69 an axe was recovered from a heap of bricks belonging to Budhram, at the instance of the accused the same day, vide Ex. P. 7.

(3.) The accused abjured his guilt and denied the commission of the offence. His defence was one of complete denial. He pleaded his innocence and alleged that be was not at the spot at the time of the incident. But on the contrary he was working as a Siri of Kirpal Singh D. W. 2