DURGA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal appeal against the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default of payment of fine, one year RI and also under Section 323 IPC for six months RI.

(2.) A report lodged at the Police Station Aklera, District Jhalawar on 27 -11 -1983 at 1 p.m. regarding an incident which is alleged to have taken place on 27th November, 1983 between 8 and 8.15 a.m., by Smt Kanti Bai (PW -13), wife of deceased Ram Narain. In the report, it has been mentioned that in the morning at about between 8 to 8.15 a.m., she and her husband were doing repair works of the house ('GARA POT RAHE THE') and her Dewar Durga Lal (accused) came there with a 'Lohadi' (a stick with rings) and started abusing her husband and asked him to get out of the house, and that he will not allow to do 'Gara' (repair of house). Her husband replied that this portion of the house had come in his share and he should not object but Durgalal replied that he will take this house and Ramnarain, husband of Smt. Kantibai will not give the same, the accused will finish him to avoid any future dispute. Thereafter, the accused inflicted a blow from Lohadi on the head of her husband, as a result there of, her husband Ram Narain fell down and he gave some more beating to him while lying and when Mst. Kantibai went to his rescue, she was also given beating by the accused. Ultimately, Rammnarain died and she made the report. The police registered a case under Section 302 and 307, IPC. After usual investigation, the challan was filed in the court of learned Magistrate who committed the case to the court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar convicted the accused appellant as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

(3.) LEARNED trial court has placed reliance on the evidence of PW -13 Kanti Bai and PW -16 Jagdish who happened to be the eye witnesses and has found the accused guilty of offence. We have also examined the evidence of PW -13 Kantibai and PW -16 Jagdish very, closely. PW -13 Kanti Bai is wife of the deceased who lodged the First Information Report and is admittedly an interested witness. In her statement, she has very categorically stated that on account of the injuries received by her, she had fallen on the ground and had become unconscious, and that she re -gained consciousness on the nezt day at 5 p.m. She has further stated that on the date of incident, she was unconscious for the whole day and night and regained consciousness on the next day, and what happened during that period, was not known to her as she was unconscious. FIR (Ex. P. 14) is alleged to have been lodged at 1 p.m. on the date of incident and bears thumb mark of Mst. Kanti Bai. On further cross -examination, she was unconscious when she was taken in the cart. She was not in a position to speak and she regained consciousness only at 5 p.m. on the next day and therefore, she filed the report in the police on the next day after she regained consciousness. She has further stated that shi did not lodge any report on the day of incident but only on next day. We are not able to reconcile this contradiction.