LAWS(RAJ)-1978-4-6

KHEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On April 07, 1978
KHEM SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by Khemsingh against the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur on April 17, 1972 by which he convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the murder of his own cousin Asu Singh.

(2.) THE deceased Asu singh alias Asiya and the appellant were cousins. On the day of incident, that is, August 22, 1971 at about 12 noon both of them were grazing their bullocks in Bor -Ki -Kudi Ki -Magri. The bullocks belonging to Khem Singh entered the field of Asu Singh for grazing. Asu Singh complained to Khem Singh that he has put his bullocks in his field. Khemsingh asserted that the field also belonged to him. This verbal altercation turned into grappling between them. Mst. Bhoori (P.W. 2) and Mst. Dakhu (P.W. 3), who were present near by in their fields, asked them not to fight. The deceased and the appellant then separated. Asu Singh went down the the hillock and Khem Singh climbed up the hillock. While climbing up Khern Singh abused Asu Sirgh, where upon Asu Singh went back towards Khem Singh with a stick (lathi) When Asu Singh reached near Khem Singh, Khem Singh gave a blow with an axe on the right side of the neck of Asu Singh with an axe which Khem Singh had with him. Asu Singh turned back to go down the hillock but fell down and died Mst. Bhoori (PW. 2) and Mst. Dakhu (P.W. 3) raised an alarm which attracted Kana, who also reached there Mst Dakhu (P.W. 3) narrated to him what had happened. Kana went to inform Puran Singh, the father of Asu Singh, at his house but he was not available there. One Panna Singh also went to inform Puran Singh. and while he was going he met Prem Singh (P.W. 1) in the way and told him that Asu Singh was lying dead at Bor -Ki -Kudi and that he was going to inform Puran Singh. While they were talking Puran Singh, father of the deceased Asu Singh, happened to come there. Panna Singh took Puran Singh with him and they reached the spot. Prem Singh first went to his house to leave his bullocks there and thereafter he also went on the spot. Puran Sirgh sent Prem Singh to lodge the report at the Police Station, Bhimand he accordingly lodged the report which is Ex. P.2. The Police reached the spot, prepared the Panchnama. site -pian etc. It also took in its possession a pair of shoes, a small 'lathi' (sticks, a turban and a 'chilam' lying on the spot. The autopsy of the dead body of Asu singh (deceased) was performed by Dr. Kesarimal Solankt on August 23. 1971. His statement which was recorded in the committing court is Ex. P.10. The post mortem report is Ex. P.1. The appellant was arrested on August 24, 1971 At the time of his arrest an axe was with him. This axe and the 'dhoti' and the turben which he was wea. ring at that time were also taken into possession by the Police. The appellant was sent to the judicial lock -up on August 25, 1971 and his confessional statement was recorded on August 30,1971 by the Sub -Divisional Magistrates Bhim, which is Ex P.11.

(3.) THE appellant Khem Singh in his statement recorded under Section 342 Code of Criminal Procedure (1898) admitted that there had been grappling between him and Asu Singh. Asu Singh caught the appellant by the neck and fell him down on the ground 2 -3 times, but he did not know what happened thereafter He also admitted that his 'dhoti' and the turban were stained with blood, but they were blood -stained because of the injuries on his elbow and back He also admitted that he was armed with an axe but denied that the axe Ex. P.10 belonged to him. Regarding his statement recorded by the Sub -divisional Magistrate under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure he has stated thru he was examined by the Sub divisional Magistrate but denied to have stated he had inflicted the axe below on Asu Singh He denied his statement Ex. P.12 having been made by him before the committing court. He did not produce any evidence in his defence.