NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal, under Section 374, Cr.PC has been filed against the judgment and order dated December 17, 1986, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, in Sessions Case No. 13/1986, (State v. Naresh Kumar) where by the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo further imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE incident took place on Sept. 26, 1984, at 7.45 p.m., thereupon Jugal Kishore went from the Hospital to the Police Station and lodged a report Ex P 2, on the same day at 8.30 p.m. on the basis of which Ex.P 3, FIR was chalked out. As stated in FIR deceased Kedar did work of Mistri in the factory of his brother -in -law Mangi Lal. Accused appellant was friend of Mangi Lal and both of them took drinks and moved about together. The entire expenditure was borne out by Mangi Lal. Deceased Kedar is alleged to have told the accused appellant that why he was running the home of his sister. On this account it is alleged that quarrels have taken place earlier also due to this reason the accused appellant is alleged to be bearing animosity against deceased Kedar. It is further stated in FIR that on September 26, 1984 at about 7.45 p.m. informant was standing on the shop of Parashar Pan Bhandar, situated in Barah Bhaiyou Ka -Choraha, for purchasing Pan. Deceased Kedar was standing on the shop of Hari Kishan, PW 1 for purchasing milk. In the meantime the accused appellant came on his motor cycle bearing No. RSM 4068, from the side of Chandpole and called Kedar, who came to him for a minute. When Kedar reached, accused appellant after crossing the road, put the motor cycle on its stand and gave several blows with his knife to the deceased and injured him. Kedar fell down and the accused appellant ran away on his motor cycle. Several persons had seen the incident. On the basis of the above report, a case under Section 302, IPC was registered against the appellant at Police Station Kotwali, Jaipur City and he was arrested on September 27, 1984. The Police after usual investigation submitted the charge sheet and the accused appellant was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City. The case was subsequently transferred to the trial court and after recording evidence both the sides and hearing the arguments, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.

(3.) THE contention of Shri G.C. Chatterji, learned Government Advocate and Shri N.L. Tiberwal, appearing for the complaint is that the contention of the appellant that no explanation has been given regarding the injuries caused to him is factually incorrect. All the eye -witnesses have given proper explanations regarding the injuries caused to the appellant as is evident from the statements discussed above. It is further pointed out that in the facts and circumstances of the case, when it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the appellant was author of the fatal injuries caused to the deceased Kedar it is not necessary for the prosecution to explain the injuries caused to the appellant, even though as stated above the same has been done. It is further pointed out by the learned Counsel that all the eyewitnesses have correctly stated that the alleged injuries caused to the appellant were given by some one of the the persons, who gathered on the spot while the appellant after fatally injuring the deceased was trying to run -away on his motor cycle. It is also pointed out that the witnesses have given correct version of the incident when they have stated that in the first -instance the appellant tried to start his motor cycle but he could not do so and the motor cycle fell on the road injuring his own foot. Thereafter the appellant, without starting the motor cycle tried to run away along with motor cycle on foot. It is further pointed out that presence of DW 1 Basant Kumar, at the time of the occurrence took place, has not been suggested to any of the eye -witnesses produced by the prosecution. This witness was also not examined by police under Section 161 Cr. PC It is, therefore, for the first time that he has appeared in Court to give his statement in favour of the appellant. Similar is the case of DW 2 Sunil Kumar, whose presence was also not suggested to any of the prosecution Witness while they were examined. It is further pointed out that this witness, in his examination -in -chief has stated that the accused appellant inflicted injuries on deceased Kedar with a leaver of the motor cycle. It is pointed out that the injuries sustained by deceased include six stab and two incised wounds, which cannot be caused by a leaver of motor cycle, which is a blunt object. It is, therefore, contended that the version given by the defence witnesses is unreliable. Their presence is doubtful. In view of the true version given by the eye -witnesses produced on behalf of prosecution, it is fully proved beyond any shadow of doubt that it was appellant, who stopped his motor cycle and deliberately called deceased Kedar and caused fatal injuries to him.