RAMDEVA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bundi dated 30.04.1986 whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with the stipulation that in the event of default in making payment of fine, he shall have to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 03.11.1985, one Smt. Tulsa lodged a report with Police Station Talera, Distt. Bundi that in the afternoon of that day, her husband Krishna and son Ram Lai were turning after grazing their cows. Accused-appellant Ramdeva inflicted a blow on the head of Krishna with the intention of killing him. The incident took place near Khali situated at some distance from their village. Her son Ramlal came rushing to their house and told the informant about the incident. She and Ramlal along with Ganpat, immediately went to the place of occurrence and brought Krishna to the house. R.S. Gujar of Bhawanipur who was passing by at that time and one another person by the name of Gujar, resident of Gangru, witnessed the incident. Since the injured Krishna was having severe pain, he was taken to the hospital in a tractor. Although apparently no blood was coming out of his body, but it appears that he had sustained a grievous injury in his head. On receiving this report, the police registered the case for offence under Section 307 IPC. Since there was no doctor available in the Talera dispensary, the injured was moved to Government hospital Bundi where he succumbed of his injury and as such the offence of Section 302 IPC was later added in the matter. After filing of charge sheet, the accused denied the charge of Section 302 IPC, therefore, the trial proceeded. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 9 documents. The accused in his defence, apart from his own statement under Section 313 Cr.RC, has produced DW-1 Dr. Nirmal Singh as a witness and tendered various documents in evidence. The trial court upon completion of the trial, however, convicted the accused appellant for offence under Section 304 Part-ll as aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

(3.) I have heard Shri Sanjay Mehrishi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri B.S. Chhaba, learned Public Prosecutor.