MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused appellant was convicted by the Court of Sessions Judge, Udaipur vide its judgment dated 27.5.1996 in Sessions Case No. 41/94 arising out of F.I.R. No. 13/94 of the Police Station, Amba Mata. Learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment convicted the accused appellant under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00.

(2.) The prosecution case against the appellant was that the accused and the deceased were the Security Guards in the Factory'. The first informant Sunil Kumar reported that on 10.1.1994 at about 11.15 A.M. While he, Supervisor Ravindrajeet Singh and Guard Jai Narain Singh were sitting in the Room of Supervisor at that time accused Security Guard Manoj Kumar Shukla came in the room and he said to Jai Narain Singh that as to why he is not returning his money and after saying so the accused Manoj Kumar Shukla brought out a knife from his pent pocket and hit the deceased twice on the back. Thereafter, the accused ran away with his knife. The witness shouted for help on which Gaya Singh and Ram Chandra came there and tried to attend the deceased but due to profound bleeding from injuries in the back, he died then and there.

(3.) At the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. RW. 2 Sunil Kumar was the eye-witness of the occurrence. Learned trial court found that the testimony of RW. 2 Sunil Kumar eye-witnesses is trust worthy. Learned trial court further held that on the face of the evidence as produced in this case the corroboration is not necessary for proving the testimony of eye-witness but on the record circumstantial evidence is available and the circumstantial evidence corroborates the eye-witness. The knife recovered at the instance of the accused and the clothes of the accused have been found to be stained with blood of, Group B. Blood, of Group B was also found on the clothes of the deceased and, therefore, there was sufficient corroboration of the testimony of the eye- witness RW. 2 Sunil Kumar and, thus, the learned trial court found the case proved against the accused appellant.