S.S.VYAS, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by accused Ratansingh against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated May 5, 1982 convicting the appellant under Section 304 part -I, IPC and sentencing him to eight years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/ - in default to further under go three months like imprisonment.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that the deceased -victim Lalsingh was a resident of village Ladpur Dist. Nagaur. The accused is also a resident of the same village. The relations between them were strained due their loyalty to different factions of the village. On 5.3.81, the ration sugar was being sold in the Dharamshala of village Ladpur. P W. 2 Bajranglal was selling the sugar, while P.W.6 Ram Gopal was making entries in the Sale Register. P W. 7 Mangilal was weighing the sugar P.W. 1 Malsingh and some other persons were also there. The accused came there a little before 7 p.m. and purchased the sugar. He than sat in the room, in which the sugar was being weighed and started helping in taking the sugar out of the bags. At about 7 p.m. the deceasedvictim Lalsingh also came there to take sugar. Seeing the accused distributing the sugar, he refused to take sugar. He asked Bajranglal and others to drive out the accused from the room. He said, he would not take the sugar as it has become impure due to touch of the accused He also addressed abusive and insulting words to the accused. The accused came out of the room and struck two blows with a dhariya on the neck of the victim and one on his back. He thereafter ran away. Lalsingh fell down and there was profusse bleeding from his wounds. His clothes got besmeared with the blood. The injuries proved fatal and he passed away then and there within a few minutes P.W. 8 Raghunathsingh the brother of the deceased, on being apprised of the incident, immediately went to Police Station, Makarana and lodged written report Ex. P/12 of the occurrence at about 00.40 hrs in that very right. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The Station House Officer P.W. 16 Bherusingh immediately rushed to the scence of occurrence and prepared the inquest report. He also prepared the site plan. The blood stained earth on clothes of the deceased were seized and sealed. The post -mortem examination of the victim's dead -body was conducted on 6.3.81 by PW. 9 Dr. A.K. Sharma the then Medical Officer -in -charge, Government Dispensary Makarana. He noticed injuries on the neck and back of the victim's body caused by some sharp object. In his opinion, the cause of death was haemorrfcage due to extensive injuries to the neck in calving big vessels. The post -mortem examination report is Ex. P/13. The accused was arrested on 11 -3 -81. In consequence of the information furnished by him, whilst under police custody, Dhariya (Ex. I) with which the offence was committed, was recovered from his house. On the conclusion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused in the court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Makarana, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Merta. The learned Judge framed a charge under Section 302, IPC against the accused to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed absolute innocence. He put forward the defence of 'Alibi' and averred that he was in some other village at the time of the alleged occurrence. According to him, he was falsely implicated due to his strained relations with the deceased -victim. During trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses, while in defence two witnesses were examined. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Judge held that the accused had caused death of the victim, but that was on account of grave and sudden provocation given by the victim. He held that the victim had addressed abusive, filthy and insulting words, such as 'untouchable', 'dishonest' and 'enemy' to the accused. He, therefore, found hat the act of the accused amounted to an offence under Section 304 -I and not under Section 302, IPC. The plea of alibi was rejected as being totally false. The accused was, consequently, convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) I have heared the earned Counsel for the accused -appellant and the Public prosecutor. I have also gone through the case file carefully.;