HON'BLE JOSHI, J. - (1.) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred by accused appellant Nawal Singh @ Nol Singh S/o Prem Singh against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.1, Pali, Camp Jaitaran.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case as unfolded by the prosecution are that the complainant Koop Singh S/o Prem Singh, by caste Rawat Rajput, resident of Kanuja, Kumtiya Beed presented a written report Ex.P.3 at the Police Station Raipur, that on 12.01.2003 between 12.00 noon and 1.00 p.m. he was grazing goats near his house and his grandmother Suji Devi was looking after his daughter at his house. At that time his elder brother Nawal Singh S/o Prem Singh came there with an axe in his hand, snatched Koop Singh's daughter from his grandmother and ran away. His grandmother made a huge cry and he immediately rushed to the spot and he alongwith his grandmother followed Nawal Singh. When a short distance was left, Nawal Singh caused injury on the head of his daughter, deceased Mamta and ran away towards Khangarkhet Dhani. THE injury was caused on the middle of the head of deceased Mamta and blood started oozing. Nawal Singh caused death of Mamta on account of land dispute. On the basis of Ex.P.3 written report, a criminal case under Section 302 and 448 Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') was registered at the Police Station Raipur and investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, accused Nawal Singh was arrested and blood stained clothes of deceased Mamta were recovered. Information in pursuance of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was recorded regarding the verification of the place of incident and after usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellant Nawal Singh in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bar, from where the case was committed to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track No.1, Pali Camp, Jaitaran. The accused was charged for commission of offence under Section 448, 364 and 302 IPC. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove the offence charged. The incriminating evidence available on record was put to the accused for explanation under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, 'CrPC') and the accused produced no evidence in his defence. The learned trial Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 19.02.2004 convicted the accused appellant Nawal Singh for the offence under Section 448, 364 and 302 IPC and punished him for each of the offences as under :- (1) For the offence under Section 302 IPC to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. (2) For the offence under Section 364 IPC to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment. (3) For the offence under Section 448 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Further the trial court ordered to run concurrently all substantive sentences.
(3.) DURING the course of trial, on behalf of the accused appellant an application under Section 329 of the CrPC was filed and vide order dated 02.12.2003, the said application was rejected by the learned trial court. The main contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellant was that at the time of the incident, the accused appellant Nawal Singh was not of sound mind, therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial court cannot be sustained. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the accused appellant drew the attention of the Bench towards the application submitted by the counsel for the accused during the course of the trial, which was rejected vide order dated 02.12.2003. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that the learned trial Judge vide order dated 02.12.2003 rejected the application of the accused appellant and before rejecting that application, a memo of questions was prepared by the court on 02.12.2003 and looking to the answers of those queries made by the court, the accused appellant could not be termed of unsound mind so as to attract the provisions of Section 84 of the IPC. Moreover at the time of investigation, no such fact was placed by the accused appellant before the Investigating Officer and further the record of the learned trial court also shows that the accused was not found of unsound mind. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above arguments and perused the judgment of the trial court. The memo of questionnaire prepared by the learned trial court on 02.12.2003 clearly shows that the accused appellant Nawal Singh was understanding about the fact of evidence, court and other important facts relating to the trial of the case. The next contention of the learned counsel for the accused appellant is that the accused appellant was wrongly implicated by the complainant on account of dispute of land. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor argued that injuries were inflicted on the body of deceased Mamta on account of land dispute and their enmity is a double edged weapon. ;