TULSIRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Referred Judgements :-
PRITHVI @ PRITHVIPAL SINGH AND ANR. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)BY his judgment dated January 21,1980 the learned Sessions Judge, Partabgarh (camp Chittorgarh) has convicted the accused Tulsiram under Section 302, IPC for committing the murder of his wife Mst. Narayani and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 100/ - in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. The accused has come -up in appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated, the case set -up by the prosecution is that the appellant and his wife Mst. Narayani were working on June 28, 1979 in their field situate nearly two furlongs away from their village Rnjgarh P.O. Begun district Chittorgarh. The appellant was addicted to liquor. In the afternoon, while they were still working there, Mst. Narayani requested the accused not to take liquor as much work was still to be done. This enraged the accused. He took -up a stone lying nearby and started hitting Mst. Narayani on her head with it. He continued to hit her till she died. There was profuse bleeding from her wounds. PW 5 Banshi Lal, PW 6 Chuna and PW 7 Hemraj happened to pass in the way situate nearby this field. The accused told them that he had killed his wife. From there the accused went to his younger brother PW I Sangram, who was working in his field. The accused told him that he had killed his wife and he was going to lodge a report at the Police Station. He asked Sangram (PW I) to go to the field where the dead body of Mst. Narayani was lying under a Banyan (Badh) tree. Sangram (PW 1) took his nephew Roopa (PW 2) with him and came to the field of the accused where the dead body of Mst Narayani was lying. They also found a stone and the clothes of the deceased stained with blood. The accused appeared at about 6.00 A.M. on June 24, 1979 at Police Station, Begun and verbally lodged report Ex. P. 8 of the occurrence. In this report he stated he had committed the murder of his wife Mst. Narayani by striking blows on her head with a stone and that her dead body was lying in his field. The Station House Officer Surendra Kumar (PW 9) registered a case under Section 302, IPC and proceeded with investigation. The accused made a disclosure statement recorded in Ex. P 9 at about 6.15 A.M. on the same day in which he stated that he was prepared to get the dead body of his wife and the stone with whieh he killed her, recovered. The investigating officer took the accused and the Motbirs with him and arrived in the field of the occurrence where the dead body of Mst. Narayani was lying and PW 1 Sangram and PW 2 Roopa were sitting nearby. He prepared the inquest report of the victim's dead body and inspected the site. He also took in possession two pieces of stone lying nearby the dead body. The accused was formally arrested thereafter. The post -mortem examination of the victim's dead body was conducted at about 3.40 P.M. on June 29, 1979 by PW 3 Dr. Narendra Kumar, the Medical Officer Incharge, Primary Health Centre, Chechi. The doctor noticed Hie following injuries on the body of the deceased: External
1. Lacerated wound 3' 3' on left mastoid region. Behind the left ear few maggots were seen in this wound. 2. Lacerated wound 1' 1/2' size crush injury of upper part of left ear. Some part of the ear has been torn off. 3. Lacerated wound on fore head left side 1' 1/2'. 4. An oblique wound 1/2' 1 1/2' 1' on right side of forehead just above the right eye brow. 5. Lacerated wound 2' 1' on right maxilary prominence. The right maxillary bone has been fractured and crushed and right maxillary simus was exposed. Some clotted blood was deposited by the sides of sinuses. 6. Lacerated wound 2' 1/2' in front of right eat and the adjoining maxillary bone has been crushed and broken in pieces. 7. A lacerated wound looking an incised wound 1' x 1/4' on right side of anterior part of head. 8. Lacerated wound 4' 2' in the middle of head, 3' above the forehead transverse in direction. 9. Lacerated wound 3' 2' just above the left ear. The left temporal bone became fractured and some of its parts have been crushed. 10. A lacerated wound 2' 1' in the right inquinal region in front of right anterior superior iliac spine. 11. Lacertated wound in left inquinal region 2' x 1' just in front of anterior iliac spine of left ilias bone at its anterior superior spine. Internal 1. The mastoid prominence of right temporal bone has been crushed and broken into pieces. 2. The right maxillary bone at its maxillary prominence has been crushed and broken in pieces. 3. Right iliac bone has been crushed and broken in pieces at the right anterior superior iliac spine. 4. Left iliac bone has been crushed and broken in pieces at left anterior superior iliac spine.
The clothes which the deceased was wearing were also found stainted with blood. The doctor seized and sealed these clothes. In the opinion of Dr. Narendra Kumar, the causes of death of the victim were (1) haemorrhage and (2) traumatic shock as a result of various injuries sustained by her. The injuries were ante -mortem. The post -mortem examination report issued by him is Ex. P 1. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the Court of Musif and Judicial Magistrate, Begun, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 302, IPC against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. He denied that he had committed the murder of his wife. According to him, he has been falsely implicated. He, thus, claimed absolute innocence. In support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced to evidence. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge held that the charge has been satisfactorily brought at the door of the accused. The accused was consequently convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very out -set.
(3.)WE have heard the learned amicus curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor. We have also carefully gone through the record of the case.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.