- (1.)This is a jail appeal by accused Abdul Hakim against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur dated October, 24, 1979 convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC, and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-.
(2.)Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased-victim Mst. Ruqayia was the daughter of the PW 2 Fakir Mohammed and was married to the accused a few days before her murder, which took place on 9-5-1979 in the house of the appellant situate in Kelwa House, Udaipur. It is alleged that the elder sister of the deceased-victim was also married in Udaipur with one Chhote Khan. The accused suspected that Mst. Ruqayia was in illegal intimacy with Chhote Khan. Four or five days before the occurrence, Mst. Ruqayia went to live with her elder sister in the city. She also went with Chhote Khan to Nimbahera and returned from there. This further strengthened the accused suspicion about the infidelity of his wife. On 9-5-79, he went to the house of Chhote Khan and brought his wife back to his house. When he brought her to his house, Mst. Ruqayia asked for a divorce. The accused thereupon bolted the room and struck a number of blows with a dagger to Mst. Ruqayia. She fell down. There was profuse bleeding from her wounds and the clothes she was wearing got stained with it. The injuries proved fatal and she succumbed then and there. The occurrence was seen by the victim's brother Chhota Khan (PW. 1). After committing the murder of Mst. Ruqayia, the accused straight away went to police Station, Ghantaghar and lodged report Ex. P/11 of the occurrence at about 12.40 P.M. on that very day. the police registered a case and arrested the accused. The SHO Rameshwar Lal (PW. 7) arrived on the spot and prepared the inquest report of the victim's dead body. It may be mentioned that when the accused went to the police station, he was having a dagger with him. When he was arrested, the dagger was seized and sealed. The Invstigating Officer inspected the site and prepaied the site plan. The post-mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted at about 3.45 P.M. by Medical Jurist Dr. D.S Chaudbary (PW. 5). He found the following injuries on the victim's body:
(1) Incised wound over left breast over arelo inferior nipple horizontal indirections 1 x 0.2 cm. x skin deep. Margins are clean cut

(2) Incised wound over right breast 5 cm. medial to the nipple 1 x 0.3 cm. x skin deep. Margins are clean cut

(3) Two incised wound over left arm upper 1/3rd laterally one is horizontal other is vertical 1 x 0.5 cm. x skin to muscle deep

(4) Stab wound over left side of chest oblique in direction (inferiorty to exilla) 2 x 0.5 cm. Defth described on further dissection

(5) Incised wound over left buttock 1.2 x 0.3 cm. x skin deep. Margins are clean cut

(6) Incised wound over right thigh posteriorly upper 1/3rd 1 x 0.5 cm. x skin deep. Margins are clean cut

(7) Incised would over right thigh laterally upper 1/3rd 1,5 x 0.5 cm. x skin deep. Margins are clean cut

(3.)The injuries were ante mortem and were caused by sharp weapon like dagger, The cause of death according to Dr. Chaudhary was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries, specially to heart and lung. The injuries were found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The post-mortem examination report issued by him is Ex. P/8.0n the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The case came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who framed a charge under Section 302, IPC, against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused examined one witness. The defence taken by the accused during trial was that of complete denial and alibi. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the charge duly proved against the accused-appellant. The defence version was found as having no substance and merit. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced, as mentioned above.