BYAS,J. - (1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated Nov. 24, 1979, by which the appellant Kachhawa was convicted under S. 302, I.P.C. and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
(2.)The incident is a live-illustration of the clash between two Adams for one Eve with the usual result that one of the former was finished forever by his opponent.
(3.)P.W. 3 Mst. Champa, a young married woman of 20 years in age, was living with her husband, parents-in-law and the other members of their family in village Tankiya P. S. Abu Road district Sirohi. P.W. 5 Lachiya and P.W. 6 Cheliya are the brothers of her husband. The deceased Hindura developed illegal intimacy with her. The appellant Kachhwa also tried his luck in the matter and was after her in an attempt to develop illicit relationship with her. This brought the deceased and the appellant into direct conflict. A few days before Jan. 12, 1979, Champa's husband and parents-in-law went to Swaroopganj in connection with medical treatment of her mother-in-law. Mst. Champa, Lachiya and Cheliya remained behind at the house. In the night of Jan. 12, 1979, after the dinner time was over, the deceased Hindura went in search of his missing cow. While returning, when he happened to pass near the house of Champa (P.W. 3), the appellant met him. The appellant told him that as he was going towards the house of Mst. Champa in the night, he would not let him alive. Saying so, the appellant shot an arrow at Hindura, which hit him in the stomach. The arrow had a pointed iron-head. The accused thereafter made good his escape. There was profuse bleeding from the wound of Hindura and he raised cries. Hearing his cries, his brother Bhaga (P.W. 4) came there and he took him to the house. Hindura told his brother how he was hit by the appellant. At his house, many persons including PW 2 Bholiya, P.W. 7 Pabu and P.W. 8 Pooniya assembled, to whom he also narrated the incident and told them that he was hit by the appellant. P.W. 8 Pooniya reached Police Out Post, Gopalabeda at about 7.30 A.M. on Jan. 13, 1979 and verbally lodged report Ex. P. 6. As the report was not a detailed one, the Head Constable on duty informed the concerned police station, Abu Road. The Head Constable Uma Ram himself arrived on the spot. He thereafter took him to Government Dispensary, Rohira. As Hindura's condition was fast becoming precarious, his dying declaration Ex. P. 8 was recorded by the Head Constable Uma Ram (P.W. 13) in the presence of Dr. Noor Mohammed (P.W. 10). Hindura was taken from Rohira to Sirohi for treatment. Despite treatment, Hindura did not survive and breathed his last at about 7.00 A.M. on Jan. 17, 1979. Before that the police had registered a case under S. 307, I.P.C. After his death, S. 302, I.P.C. was added. The post-mortem examination of the victim's deadbody was conducted at about 9.15 A.M. on Jan 17, 1979 by Medical Jurist Dr. Barmera (P.W. 1). He found three wounds on the victim's deadbody, two of which were surgical and one caused by an arrow with the following dimensions : -
"A stitched wound 2 c.m. lying parallel to the coastal margin."
In the opinion of Dr. Barmera, the cause of the victim's death was shock caused by peritonitis and perforating injuries to the intestines. The medico-legal report issued by him is Ex. P. 1. The appellant was arrested on Jan. 14, 1979. In consequence of the disclosure statement made by him, one bow and some arrows were recovered. The blood-stained clothes of the deceased were also seized and sealed. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Session. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge under S. 302, I.P.C. against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. The defence taken by the accused was that of complete denial and false implication. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, no evidence was adduced. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Judge found the prosecution case substantially true and charge duly proved against the appellant. The appellant was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out-set. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the accused has taken this appeal.