JEEWLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DECEASED Punja had two wives - -Harki and Rakma. From Harki he had five sons including accused Jeewla, PW 8 Dhiria, PW 10 Bhemji, PW 11 Walia is son -in -law of deceased Punja. Accused Jeewla appears to be separate from his father and was cultivating his land separately where as Punja and some other sons were joint. It is alleged by the prosecution that on the mid night between November 16 and 17, 1982, Punja who was sleeping at his well raised hue and cry which attracted his sons Dhiriya and Bhemji as also his son -in -law Waliya and his second wife Smt. Rakmi, who were said to be at their house at a distance of about 200 yards. These persons rushed to the well. Dhiria, Bhemji and Waliya were a little ahead where as Rakma was a little behind. The first three witnesses -Dhiria, Bhemji and Walia saw the accused belabouring his father Punja with an axe and when these persons reached near Punja, accused Jeewla took to his heals throwing his axe on the spot. Then, PW 5 Thawra, who had also heard the cries, reached the spot and he was informed by Dhiria, Bhemji and Walia about this incident. He, then, went call Vesta (PW 2), and Vesta came to the place of occurrence. These persons also informed him of this incident. Later some more persons also gathered there and then, it was decided that a report of this incident may be made to the police. On this PW 8 Dhiria along with PW 2. Vesta went to the Police Station, Peepalkhunt and lodged an oral report there at about 11.00 A.M. The Police Station is about 10 Kms. away from the place of this incident viz Bansdikeda. PW 14 Mustak Ahmed recorded the FIR vide Ex. P 12 and then be proceeded to the spot, where he inspected the dead -body of Punja and prepared a Panchnama (Ex. P 1). He also inspected the site and prepared a site plan and site inspection note Ex.P 13 and Ex.P 14 respectively. He also took in his possession the axe. which was lying on the spot as also the 'Goodari', Chadar and cot vide Ex P 15 He also collected the blood stained as also control soil from the spot vide this memo. Then, he arrested accused Jeewla on 18 -11 -82 vide Ex.P 16. Before this date, the dead body bad already been sent for post -mortem examination. Dr. P.L. Bhardwaj (PW 4) performed the post -mortem examination and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:

(2.) AFTER completion of the investigations, challan was put up against the accused Jeewla and he was committed to the court of Sessions, Banswara Charge under Section 302, IPC was framed against him. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution, thereupon, examined 14 witnesses and produced 16 documents. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.PC the accused maintained his denial of the prosecution story, but did not produce any evidence in defence. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused, the learned Sessions Judge committed Jeewla under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life vide his judgment dated 21 -5 -83. Being aggrieved of this, Jeewla has come up in appeal.

(3.) IT may be stated at the very outset that the learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the direct testimony of PW 8 Dhiria, PW 10 Bhemji and PW 11 Walia, as also the corroborative evidence of PW 5 Thawra, PW 2 Vesta and PW 9 Rakma. So far as the recovery of the axe etc. is concerned, it is immaterial because in the first place, the axe was found lying at the spot itself and in the second place, the chemical and the serologist reports in respect of this axe are not available. Therefore, the case depends upon the evidence of these eye -witnesses and the corroborative evidence of other three witnesses. Learned Counsel for the appellant was attacked this evidence on various counts and had urged that this evidence was not at all believable and the learned Sessions Judge should not have relied upon it. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, urged that the evidence is wholly reliable and has rightly been acted upon by the learned Sessions Judge. The offence has clearly been brought home to the accused and, therefore, the conviction of the accused is proper.