MADAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Hanuman Garh dated Dec. 9, 1981 where by the appellant Madan Singh was convicted under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2000/ - on the first count and two years' rigorous imprisonment with a line of Rs. 1000/ - on the second count. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY recalled, the prosecution case is that the deceased victim Gurudayal Jat was the son of PW 9 Raja Ram and brother of PW 7 Mohar Singh and was residing with them in village Dubli Kalan, Police Station, Tibi District Sri Ganganagar. The accused is a resident of village Chhajusar District Churu. In 1979, the accused was employed as a 'Haali' (agricultural labourer) by Raja Ram to work on his fields situate in Chak -4 R.R.P. Rohi Mauja Dabbli. The accused had executed the agreement Ex. P 8 in that respect in favour of Raja Ram on June 21, 1979. In the morning on August 31, 1979, the accused went to the fields of Raja Ram to provide water to the standing crops there in. At about 8.00 or 9 00 am. on |he same day, the deceased Gurudayal went to the fields of his father and took food' 'With him for the accused. At about 12.00 in the noon, the accused and Gurudayal fell -out and a quarrel took place between them. PW 1 Soji Ram, PW 2 Gopi Ram, PW 3 Sukh Ram and PW 4 Mansha Ram, who. were working in their fields nearby came and intervened. Gurudayal was complaining that the accused was not working properly and the accused complained that Gurudayal had addressed vulgar abuses or him. However, the matter got pacified. The accused, at that time, told that he would settle the accounts with Gurudayal later on.The accused worked on the water channel thereafter, while Gurudayal slept under a tree. At about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m., PW 7 Mohar Singh went to the fields to provide food to his brother Gurudayal and the accused, but he found none of them there in the fields. He cried aloud. Soji Ram (PW 1), Gopi Ram (PW 2), Sukh Ram (PW 3) and Mansha Ram (PW 4) apprised him of the quarrel which had taken place between the accused and Gurudayal in the noon of that day. Mohar Singh worked in the Melds and provided water through the channel to the standing crop. After mid -night, he returned to his house and told his father Raja Ram (PW 9) that neither Gurdayal nor the accused was available at the fields. His father Raja Ram took the matter lightly and thought that both of them would have gone towards Gagamandi. Next day, when neither Gurudayal nor the accused returned, the members of the family went in search of them, but could not trace out either. At about 8.00 p.m. on September 2, 1979, when PW 1 Soji Ram was working in his field, he found bad smell emitting from a corner in the water channel. He went to PW 9 Raja Ram and informed him, at about 8.00 p m., of the same. Raja Ram took some persons with him and went to his fields They found a dead body lying buried in the water channel. He sent PW 6 Mani Ram with two more persons to lodge a report at the police station. Mani Ram reached Police Station, Tibi at about 8.15 p.m. on September 3, 1979 and verbally lodged report Ex. P 1. The police registered a case under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. The investigation was taken -up. The Station House Officer Roshanali (PW 13) arrived on the spot, inspected the site and discovered the dead body from the water channel. He prepared the inquest report Ex. P 3 and Panchnama Ex. P 4 of the dead body. The dead body was found to be of Gurudayal. The post -mortem examination of the victim's dead body Was conducted on the same day by PW 8 Dr. Surendra Kumar the then Medical Officer Incharge, Government Dispensary, Tibi. He noticed the following injuries on the victim's dead body:

(3.) THE learned amicus curiae did not challenge the opinion of PW 8 Dr. Surendra Kumar about the cause of death of Gurudayal. We have also carefully gone through his evidence and find no reason; to distrust his opinion. Gurudayal had received three incised wounds all on neck and one lacerated wound on the left leg. The three incised wounds were individually as well as collectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The death of Gurudayal was, thus, not natural but homicidal.