SHEKHU @ IKRAMUDDIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 16th, June, '87 and hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Accused-appellant Shekhu has been found guilty of offence u/s. 302, IPC, while appellant Ashok has been convicted u/s. 302/34, IPC; and both the appellants have been sentenced to imprisonment for life, and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) One Babulal PW 1, submitted a written-report on 20th Nov., '85, at PS - Sadar, Jaipur, alleging that on that day, he himself and Rajendrasingh (deceased) had gone to meet Nawab Bhai on a bycycle, for the purpose of getting the dispute settled in between Rajendrasingh and Shekhu, amicably and that, after talking to Nawab Bhai at 'Maan Industries', while they were returning, appellant Shekhu and another boy called them near the Ram Mandir, in Loco-Colony. They stopped near the railway-quarters. Accused Shekhu was having a knife. Both Shekhu and the other boy came running towards them. Rajendrasingh was caught hold of by the other boy, while Shekhu gave him knife-blows. After having knife-blows. Rajendrasingh, however, ran away, being chased by Shekhu, who again inflicted knife-blows to him. Rajendrasingh was taken to SMS Hospital in an auto-rickshaw, where, he was declared as dead. Babulal also mentioned in the report that he could identify the other boy, if he is brought before him.

(3.) On this report, a regular FIR was registered by the investigating officer, who inspected the site and prepared the site-plan (Ex. P. 3) and a Panchayatnama of the deadbody. Post-mortem examination on the deadbody was conducted by Dr. Vivekanand PW 17; and the post-mortem report is Ex. P. 33. In the opinion of the doctor, Rajendrasingh (deceased) had four stab-wounds, one incised wound and one abrasion. In his opinion, the mode of death was shock brought about as a result of injury to the vital part, i.e., abdominal aorta, as mentioned in the postmortem report. The said injury No. 2 alone, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused (Shekhu) was arrested on 21st Nov., '85, who then gave information u/s. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act for recovery of one knife. The said information having been reduced into writing is Ex. P. 28. On the basis of this information and at the instance of accused Shekhu, the knife was recovered vide recovery-memo (Ex. P. 12).