SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 24, 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, thereby convicting the accused appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment.
(2.) THE prosecution story, in nut shell is that on 11. 7. 94 at 1. 10 AM PW-2 Farooq elder brother of deceased Arif submitted a written report, Ex. P. 6 before PW-10 Kishan Lal Sub Inspector, Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur, alleging therein that during the night intervening 10/11. 7. 94 at about 11-11. 15, while he along with Bundu and Chand were sitting infront Dargah Adamshah near Julahon-ki-masjid and were talking together, on hearing noise, all of them rushed to the place and found that in A-von Milk Store, accused Sajid had caught the neck of Mohd. Arif. He asked as to what has happened, in the meantime, Sajid took out a knife from the right pocket of his trouser and stabed below the left ribs by saying that "aaj TERA KAM TAMAM KAR DETA HOON". As a result of stabbing, his intestines came out. He fell down and became unconscious. At that time, Sahid R/o Oonth-wala-mohalla was also with accused Sajid. Jalal and Abdul Rashid were also present at the place of occurrence. THE accused ran away inflicting knife blow. THEreafter, he alongwith Haji Jahir Ahemd took the injured to S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur, where the doctors after examining the injured, declared him dead. On the basis of the above written report, Ex. P6, Police registered a case vide FIR No. 234/94, Ex. P. 7 for offence under Section 302 IPC and proceeded to investigate the case. PW-10 Kishan Lal prepared the inquest report, Ex. P. 2 and seized T-shirt, Baniyan and belt of the deceased having cut marks and blood stains vide seizure memo Ex. P. 3. He inspected the site and prepared site plan Ex. P. 5. He arrested accused Mohd. Sajid on 11. 7. 94 accused Mohd. Sahid on 12. 7. 94 vide Ex. P. 9 and Ex. P. 15 respectively. Accused Mohd. Sajid gave information Ex. P. 16 under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on 13. 7. 94 about recovery of knife and pursuant to his information, a knife was recovered from his house vide Ex. P. 4. Post mortem on the dead body of deceased Arif was conducted by PW-8 Dr. Sheetal Jain, the report of which is Ex. P. 13. On post mortem, the doctor found following injury on the person of deceased: "incised stab wound of size 3 cm x 1 cm x abdomen cavity deep placed over left side lower abdomen, 8 cm lateral to the umbilicus and 6-1/2 cm over the outer superior iliac spine. Margins are clear cut, regular and well defined. On exploration, the wound is going downwards radially cutting the underneath muscles cleanly after this the loops of intestine at one place found cut through and through. On further exploration, the wound track further goes downwards and towards right side of abdomen. On it side, it cutted the internal iliac artery just lcm below its origin from the right common iliac artery, surrounding tissue having tick haeatoma. Abdominal cavity is full of clotted a fluid blood. The wound is obliquely placed. Loops of intestines are coming out from the wound". Dr. Jain has opined that duration of above injury is within 24 hours prior to post mortem examination. He further opined that the cause of death is Haemorahagic shock as a result of antimortem injury to right internal iliac artery and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. After completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against accused Mohd. Sajid @ Sajid and Mohd. Sahid under Section 302, 302/34 IPC and Sec. 4/25 of the Arms Act in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 11 Jaipur City, Jaipur, who committed the case to the court of Sessions. The case came to be tried by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. After hearing counsel for the accused appellants, the learned trial court framed charges under Sec. 302 IPC and Sec. 4/25 Arms Act against accused Sajid and u/s. 302/34 against accused Sahid. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited some documents. The accused were then examined under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. The accused also examined in their defence DW-1 Abdul Gaffar and D. W. 2 Sabbir Khan.
(3.) AFTER completion of trial, hearing arguments of both the sides and perusal of evidence and material on record, convicted and sentenced accused appellant Sajid as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal by accused appellant. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Pro- secutor and gone through the judgment under challenge and the evidence on record. In assailing the conviction, the main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for accused appellant is as to what offence is made out against the accused. According to him, there was no enimity between the deceased and the accused appell- ant nor it was the case of the prosecution that there existed enimity between the two. The prosecution has failed to establish the cause giving rise to the commission of crime by the appellant. He submitted that PW-2 Farooq, PW 4 Jalalludin and PW 5 Abdul Rashid reached at the place of occurrence on hearing some noise, which means that some hot words were being exchanged between the deceased and the accused appe- llant, as a result of which heat was generated and in that heat of passion and provoca- tion, the accused appellant took out knife, inflicted single blow and then ran away. In this back-ground, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant cannot be attributed with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury, which is suffi- cient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or with the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probabilities cause death. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan (1) & K. Ramkrishnan Unnithan vs. State of Kerala ;