LAXMAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30-5 1996 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302. I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment one preferred by the appellant through jail and the other is a represented one, and relate to the same incident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Appellant Laxman, along with one Megha, was tried by the learned Sessions Judge. Rajsamand for committing the merder of his brother Bhima near the holy place of Dana Baba situated in village Khekhadiya (district Rajsamand). The case of the prosecution was that in the morning of 26-11-1995, P.W.1 Dewa saw the dead body of Bhima Bhil lying near Dana Baba holy place of worship. One Kulhari smeared with blood one Agarbati packet and a match-box were also lying by the side of the dead body of Bhima. He returned to his house and informed Panna Meghwal and Kalu Meghwal. All of these, three persons thereafter came near the dead- body of Bhima. The other villagers Narain Singh and Others also came there, They made an enquiry from Bhimas brother Laxman (the present accused-appellant) and on enquiry Laxman informed them that on the previous night at 10.00/11.00 p.m. his brother deceased Bhima had gone for worship to Dana Baba holy place he and Megha Rawal both followed him; Megha handed over his Kulhari to the accused and thereafter Megha caught hold of both the legs of deceased Bhima and accused Laxman inflicted 5-7 injuries by the Kulhari on the face of Bhima and committed his murder. Thereafter after leaving the Kulhari at the place of the incident, he and Megha went to their house, Prior to this incident. Megha asked him that his (appellants) brother always used to pick-up quarrel and he should be done to death. Thereafter he offered drink to him, which he took and then both of them committed the murder of Bhima.

(3.) The prosecution, in support of its case, examined nine witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge, after trial acquitted accused Megha of the offence under Section 302 or 302/34 I.P.C. but convicted and sentenced accused appellant Laxman for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. as stated above. It is against this judgment that the appellant has preferred these two appeals. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the F.I.R. lodged by P.W.2 Narain Singh has not been placed on record and the F.I.R. (Ex. P.1) is a post investigation document and is the result of fabrication and embellishment and is hit by Section 162 Cr. P.C. The F.I.R. was despatched to the Court after the delay of 24 hours while the Court is situated in the same town and not at a much distance. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the recovery of the clothes and the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant on which reliance has been placed by the learned trial court do not inspire confidence and the whole of the prosecution case has been concocted and fabricated. The appellant had neither any motive nor any occasion to commit the murder of his real brother and he therefore deserves to be acquitted. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial Court.