SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by uxoricide is directed against the judgment dated 3-4/8/1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur by which he has convicted him for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
(2.) ON 7. 7. 1993 at about 3. 30 PM, one Babu Lal lodged a written report, Ex. P. 3 at Police Station, Mansarovar, Jaipur stating therein that the accused appellant has murdered his wife Smt. Narbada by inflicting knife blows and his grand daughter Kumari Laxmi aged 12 years informed him about the incident and on being informed by her he himself saw Smt. Narbada lying in a dead condition out side the house No. 115/103 having injuries on her abdomen. The Police registered a case No. 110/93 for offence under Sec. 302 IPC vide FIR No. ,ex. P. 10 and proceeded to investigate the case. During investigation, the police inspected the site and prepared site plan Ex. P. 2. He collected sample of control soil and blood smeared soil from the place of incident vide Ex. P. 4 and P5, respectively. The Police arrested accused Banwari Lal vide arrest memo Ex. P. 9 and took in possession his shirt which he was wearing and one bag containing a shirt vide Ex. P. 6 and P. 7 respectively. The police also recovered a knife on the information of accused Ex. P. 11, vide recovery memo Ex. P. 8. The site plan of the place from where knife was recovered is Ex. P. 8-A. The Investigating Officer prepared Panchayatnama of the dead body of deceased Narbada, which is Ex. P. 1. The Medical Jurist conducted the post mortem of the dead body of Narbada vide his report Ex. P. 12. The accused was also examined for his injuries and his injury report is Ex. D. 1. After completion of investigation, the Police submitted a charge sheet against the accused in the court of Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who, in turn, committed the case to the court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the material on record, framed charge against the accused appellant under Sec. 302 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited some documents. After recording prosecution evidence, the learned trial court examined the accused under Section 313 Cr. P. C. for the purpose of enabling him personally to explain the circumstances appearing against him. The accused in him defence also examined DW 1 Dr. D. W. Temani. After completion of trial and after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the accused and the Public Prosecutor, the learned trial court found the accused appellant guilty for offence under Sec. 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.
(3.) IN assailing the conviction, the learned counsel for the accused appellant has argued that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the findings arrived at by the learned trial court are based on misreading of the material evidence on record. He further argued that PW 3 Kumari Laxmi is the only eye witness. She has given the statement as a tutored witness and the learned trial court has seriously erred in relying on her statement. He also submitted that the recovery of knife is also suspicious and that the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries found on the body of accused appellant. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that from the evidence and material on record, the prosecution has not been able to prove guilt against the accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, he deserves to be acquitted. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial court and contended that the learned trial court after proper appreciation of evidence and considering the material on record has rightly held the accused appellant guilty of committing murder of his wife. To consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused appellant and to examine the findings arrived at by the learned trial court, it would be appropriate to first refer to the prosecution evidence, relevant to decide the present appeal. ;