SAMSHER SINGH GULLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 1, Hanumangarh by which he convicted the appellant Samsher Singh for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. In case of default of payment of fine the appellant was ordered to undergo S.I. for three months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 21-12-1988 Mahima Singh made an oral report at Police Station, Tibi at 6.30 p.m. to the effect that enmity between his family members and Samsher Singh was existing due to old litigation between the parties. His father Ajayab Singh had gone to Ganganagar in order to attend Court proceedings on 19-12-1988. He returned on the evening of 21-12-1988. The informant was waiting at Talwara Jhil Bus Stand. His father Ajayab Singh returned by the bus which arrived at 5 p.m. then he was asked by his father to go to the market. Ajayab Singh went away to the village. It was further stated in the FIR that Samsher Singh, covered with a blanket, was standing at the bus stand from before. As soon as Ajayab Singh started, Samsher Singh chased him. Informant Mahima Singh had a doubt, therefore, he also followed them. As soon as Ajayab Singh reached infront of flour mill of Ramjilal, accused appellant threw his blanket and brought out Gandasi which he was having in his hand and speedily following Samsher Singh, inflicted a Gandasi blow on his head. At that time Ajayab Singh was on the side of Narayan Pandey's house. He fell down. The informant Mahima Singh made hue and cry. It were Milkha Singh, Virsha Singh and Dhukar Singh who immediately came there. It was further mentioned in the FIR that when Samsher Singh fell down, the accused appellant inflicted three Gandasi blows on his head. The incident had taken place at about 5.15 p.m. These persons tried to catch hold Samsher Singh but latter waving the Gandasi towards them, ran away. By that time, Ajayab Singh had expired. When Mahima Singh was going towards the police checkpost at Talwara Jheel, constable Kanwar Singh met him in the way. Then Kanwar Singh was left near the dead body, Mahima Singh went to the police station to report the matter FIR No. 235/88 for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. was registered. During the investigation, the SHO reached at the site and prepared site plan Ex. P/2 along with memo of the site plan which is Ex.P/2-A. A blood stained brick was recovered vide Ex. P/3, blanket vide Ex. P/4. Panchayatnama Ex. P/5 was prepared. Blood stained clothes of deceased were recovered vide Ex.P/6. Control soil as well as blood smeared soil were seized vide Ex. P/2, Gandasi was recovered on 28-12-1988 vide Ex. P/12 at the instance of the accused appellant after he had made a disclosure statement under 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Site plan of the place of recovery of Gandasi was also prepared which is (sic) Post mortem of dead body of deceased was conducted on 22-12-1988. The articles seized were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. Accused appellant was arrested on 27-12-1988 vide Ex. P/31. On the basis of disclosure statement P/32 Gandasi was recovered on 28-12-1988 at 10.30 a.m. After investigation the challan was submitted before the Magistrate, having jurisdiction. The case was then committed by the Magistrate to the learned Sessions Judge who framed charge under Section 302, I.P.C. against the appellant on 21-4-1989. Prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Accused appellant was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. His defence was that the witnesses have falsely implicated him and the deceased and accused had a litigation under Section 307, I.P.C. which resulted into compromise. The deceased was facing trial in some criminal cases with so many persons and someone having enmity with him might have committed his murder. He did not produce any witness in defence. The learned Sessions Judge then, after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.