STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAMAN AND VICE VERSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a murder reference for confirmation of the death sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur, by his judgment dated 1st October, 1986. The accused -appellant has also preferred the appeal against the aforesaid judgment. The learned Sessions Judge has awarded a death sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 100/ -. He has also convicted accused -appellant under Section 392 I.P.C. and sentenced him to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and under Section 354 I.P.C. to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Thus, both are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this case are that on 7 -9 -1985 a FIR was filed at 7 00 p.m. at Police Station, Sagwara, by PW 1 Ramega r/o Vanori that at 12.00 p.m. when he went to the field for grazing the cattle, at that time his daughter Mst. Shankuntala was at the house. In the evening, at about 6 p.m. when he was coming back from the field, one Ratanji informed that the accused Raman has assaulted his daughter Shankuntala in the Gotalawale field and has taken away her ornaments. He rushed to the field and there, he was informed that the villagers have shifted her to the hospital. He went to Sagwara and there, he found that Mst. Shakuntala was being carried on cot to the hospital. There he saw that Mst. Shakuntala was bleeding from her injury. He tried to talk to her, but she was unconscious. She was got admitted in the hospital. This incident was witnessed by Mohanlal and Smt. Ganga w/o Mohanlal. When they reached to rescue the victim, the accused Raman ran away in the fields with the ornaments. It is further stated in the FIR that when Mst. Shakuntala was alone in the Maize field, accused first snatched away the ornaments and, therefore, he tried to commit a rape, Shakuntala cried for the help and accused stabbed her with the knife and ran away from that place. On the basis of this report, case under Sections 394, 376 and. 511 I.P.C. was registered The investigation was taken up and dying declaration of deceased Shakuntala was also recorded Thereafter, Mst. Shakuntala expired on 12th September, 1985, therefore the case was also registered against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. The blood -stained clothes of Mst. Shakuntala were seized, the accused was arrested and on the basis of the information given by him, ornaments and the knife were recovered. The ornaments were put for identification also. After the close of necessary investigation, police filed a challan against the accused under Sections 394, 302, 376/511 and 326 I.P.C. The case was committed to Sessions. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and got number of documents exhibited. The learned Sessions Judge, after due trial, convicted the accused under Section 302I.P.C. and awarded him a death sentence looking to the gravity of the offence. Aggrieved against that conviction and sentence, accused -appellant has also filed an appeal as well as the case has been placed for this Court for confirmation of the death sentence.

(3.) LEARNED amicus curiae has urged that the testimony of both eye witnesses, i.e., PW 3 Mohanlal and PW 5 Mst. Ganga is not reliable and in fact they have not witnessed the incident. We have gone through the statements of PW 3 Mohanlal and PW 5 Mst. Ganga. PW 3 Mohanlal has deposed that on relevant day, he was working in his field and when he heard the cries of Mst. Shakuntala, he immediately rushed to the field from where the cry was coming and he saw that accused has stabbed Mst. Shakuntala and was running away with her ornaments in his hand. PW 5 Mst. Ganga has also deposed that she saw the accused running away but looking to the injuries caused to Mst. Shakuntala, she became unconscious and fell down on the ground. Learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to impress that the version given out by both these witnesses is in the serious variation with each other. PW 3 Mohanlal has deposed that as soon as he heard the cries of Mst. Shakuntala he shouted that he is coming. As against this, PW 5 Mst. Ganga has deposed that victim in fact cried that somebody should come to rescue her as Raman has killed her and thereafter, she became unconscious. After going through the statement of both the witnesses, it appears that PW 3 Mohanlal, who reached the site, saw the accused Raman running away. He was followed by his wife. Thus, so far as the testimony of PW 3 Mohanlal is concerned, it cannot be doubted. His presence at the scene of the occurrence is not un -natural. He was working in the field at the relevant time, i.e. at 4 p.m. Both the fields are adjacent to each other. As soon as the victim cried, then Mohanlal reached on the scene of the occurrence and saw the accused sitting on the chest of the victim and stabbing her. The incident has happened in such a quick succession that the incident of shouting and the accused hitting the deceased appears to be within a very short space of time. The reaching of PW 3 Mohanlal on the scene within a very short span of time from the adjoining field also cannot be ruled out. Simply because the manner of narration by both the witnesses may not be in exact re -production of the event, by that, it cannot mean that testimony of PW 3 Mohanlal should be discarded. After carefully considering the testimony of PW 3 Mohanlal, it appears that he is truthful witness and he has reached on the scene of the occurrence in time and he definitely saw the accused giving the blow to the deceased. Thus, we find that the testimony of PW 3 Mohanlal is truthful. PW 5 Mst. Ganga, who has also reached the scene, but since she fainted after seeing the whole incident, therefore, it is just possible that she might not have seen the accused. But non -the -less the testimony of PW 3 Mohanlal is trust worth and reliable one. Thus, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is without any merit and is over -ruled.