VEERJI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 14th Oct., 1998 in Sessions Case No.79/90 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur whereby the appellant was convicted under Secs.307 and 342 I.PC. He was sentenced to 4 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000.00 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 3 months under Sec. 307 I.RC. and further sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 342 I.PC.

(2.) The prosecution case is that Rajesh Kumar s/s Prabhulal Suwalka resident of Devpura, a student, was going to the house of the tailor Bhagwatilal at about 8.00 RM. on 4.10.1990. He was passed in front of the house of appellant Veerji, who was standing there and told him that he is always hostile and acts against him. The Appellant Veerji forcibly took him in his from his pocket and inflicted a blow on the left chest. However, the injured Rajesh Kumar rescued himself and came out of the house. His father Prabhulal P.W. 2, mother Smt. Kaushalya Devi RW.3 and Bhagwatilal PW.5 reached at the place of occurrence. The First information Report was ledged by Rajesh Kumar at 11.30 P.M. at Police Station, Jawar Mines. The case was registered under Secs.307, 342 I.RC. and 4/25 Arms Act and after completing usual investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and one Taju. On committal of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur held the trial. During the trial both the accused persons absented themselves. However, Taju was arrested and produced in the Court, who faced the trial and by the judgment dated 26.6.1998 he was acquitted of the offences under Secs.342, 307 read with 34, 329 read with 34 and 323 I.P.C. Later on, the accused appellant Veerji was also arrested and on completion of the trial, the impugned judgment and order of sentence was passed against him as stated above.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence under Sec.307 I.P.C. is not made out because there is no fracture on the person of injured Rajesh and there was no repetition of the blow. If 'the petitioner's intention was to cause death of Rajesh then he would have repeated the blows for which there was no hinderance, because according to the prosecution' the appellant had forcibly taken Rajesh inside the house and bolted the doors. Therefore, the offence falls within the ambit of Sec. 324 or at the most 326 I.RC.. He also contended that it is revealed from the statements of the eye witnesses that in fact they have no seen the appellant causing the alleged injury to Rajesh. The recovery of the knife is also not proved in consequence of the information and out of the conscious and exclusive possession of the appellant. More-over, the prosecution has failed to prove by proper link evidence that the knife remained intact and sealed condition in Malkhana till it was delivered in the Forensic Science Laboratory. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecution has failed to prove the offences alleged against the appellant. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment contending that the guilt has been brought at home beyond reasonable doubt to the appellant by the statement of injured Rajesh which is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The prosecution case is further supported by Prabhulal, Smt. Kaushlaya, Bhagwatilal and other witnesses.