NATHU LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant stands convicted and sentenced, by the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara dated May 24, 1987, for the offence under Section 304, Part -I, IPC to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ - in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE appellant was tried for the offence under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of Kana Jat, in an incident which took place on December 7, 1977 in the field of Ugma in village Kalyas. The First Information Report of the occurrence was lodged by Rampal, PW 1, at Police Station, Asind on December 8, 1977 at 7 a.m. There is no witness to the incident as to how it started but the prosecution has examined five witnesses, namly, Rampal PW 1, Rama PW 3, Suvalal PW 4, Nathu PW 5 and Sukhdeo PW 6, to show that the accused was responsible for the murder. A further circumstance against the accused was that a lathi was recovered during investigation on the information and at the instance of the accused but no hum in blood was found on the same and it was, therefore, of no consequence to the prosecution. After investigation, the accused was challaned in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura, who committed him to the court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, for trial for the offence under Section 302 IPC. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.PC the accused denied the prosecution allegations and said that he was implicated on mere suspicion. Like other witnesses he, too, had reached the spot on hearing the cries of the deceased. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid for the offence under section 304, Part -I, IPC and sentenced him to five years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/ - and in default of payment of fine to further R.I. for 3 months. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal in this Court.

(3.) THERE is force in the submission of the learned counsel. As already observed the prosecution has based its case on the testimony of five witnesses namly, PW 1 Rampal, PW 3 Rama, PW 4 Suvalal, PW 5, Nathu and PW 6 Sukhdeo. On their own testimony the witnesses Suvalal PW 4 and Sukhdeo PW 6, reached, the spot, when the occurrence had already ended, the deceased was lying in the field and the accused was standing on the boundary of the field. They themselves did not see the causing of injuries to Kana. Rampal PW 1, stated in the court that he saw the accused inflicting lathi blows to Kana. He was, however, confronted with the First Information Report, where he omitted to mention this fact. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that the evidence of the witness that he saw the accused inflicting the blow was not acceptable. As regards the evidence of the remaining witnesses, Rama PW 3 has stated in the court that he saw the accused causing one blow on the body of the deceased. He was, however, confronted with his police statement Ex. D 1, where he omitted to mention this fact. Obviously, therefore, this was an improvement made by the witness in the court and cannot be safely acted upon. Another witness Nathu, PW 5, has not deposed that he saw the accused inflicting any injury to Kana. He has merely stated that he saw accused standing on the boundary of the field with a lathi in his hand. In his police statement Ex. D/2 he did not mention that the accused was having a lathi in his hand. It is thus clear, from the evidence discussed above, that none saw the accused causing any injury to Kana, what is established against him is that he was standing in the field of Ugma when the witnesses reached there on hearing the cries of Kana. The accused has explained this by saying that he, too had also gone there on hearing the cries of Kana like other witnesses. There is thus scope for suspicion and in these circumstances it would not be safe to maintain his conviction for the offence of causing the death of Kana. The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.