SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE allegation against the appellant was that at the behest of a rapist (who was facing trial in a rape case and confined in jail) the appellant forced the rape-victim to change her statement and when she did not agree she was mercilessly stabbed and killed by the appellant. In the court of learned Sessions Judge Karauli the appellant faced the trial in Sessions Case No. 80/2000 and vide Judgment dated December 21, 1999 he was convicted and sentenced as under:- U/s. 302 IPC: To suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. U/s. 458 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) IT is the prosecution case that on June 4, 1999 the informant Jeetmal (Pw. 1) submitted a written report (Ex. P-1) and alleged that on May 7, 1999 Bhagli Jat committed rape with informant's wife Santra. Bhagli Jat was taken in custody and a criminal case was registered against him. The appellant being a friend of Bhagli Jat, came to Santra on June 2, 1999 and pursuaded her to enter into compromise with Bhagli Jat. When Santra declined the offer, the appellant gave a fist blow on her face. On June 3, 1999 around 11. 30 PM while informant, his younger brother Sarupa, his son Narendra and wife Santra were sleeping, the informant heard cries of Santra. The informant got up and saw the appellant inflicting knife blows on the person of Santra. Injured Santra was removed to hospital but on the way she died. On the basis of said report case was registered for the offences under sections 456 and 302 IPC and investigation commenced. Autopsy on the dead body was performed. Accused was arrested, necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Karauli. Charges under sections 449, 458 and 302 IPC were framed. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses. In the explanation under section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions decided the case as indicated above. We have heard the submissions advanced before us and scanned the record. Death of Santra was undeniably homicidal in nature. As per post mortem report (Ex. P-21) following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. Oblique stab wound 5cm x 7cm x skin with muscle and bone deep left side of chest (2cm below left nipple with clean cut margin tapering edges) with fracture of 6th rib. Left side and in the level of 6th and 7th rib intercostal space with bleeding with clotted dark red blood (depth is 7cm skin, muscle, left side 6th rib pleura & heart deep) with cut of ventricle of heart) with corresponding cut further Blouse and Brasery) 2. Oblique stab wound 5cm x 6cm on left front of chest & abdomen on left medial side of left axillary line of front of chest. Skin and muscle and bone 10th rib deep and cut fracture of 10th rib with insanity to pleura with clean cut margin with bleeding with clotted dark red blood with tapering edges. According to Dr. Nand Lal Sharma (Pw. 17) the cause of death was shock due to severe injury to chest wall. It is contended by learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case merely on the basis of suspicion. The alleged eye witnesses had not seen the incident as there was no facility of light and the assailant came with the covered face. The statements of witnesses about the lantern were false since the lantern was not shown in the site plan. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and urged that there was no reason to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses. Having analysed the material on record, we notice that the prosecution case rests on the testimony of Jeet Mal (Pw. 1), Sarupa (Pw. 2) and Narendra (Pw. 3 ). Jeetmal in his deposition stated that on May 7, 1999 his wife Santra was ravished by Bhagli Jat against whom criminal case was registered. Bhagli Jat, who was confined in jail, sent the appellant to Santra to enter into compromise on June 2, 1999, when Santra declined the appellant gave a fist blow on her face. On the next day the appellant threatened them of dire consequences. Around 11. 30 PM while he, Sarupa, Narendra and Santra were sleeping, he heard cries of Santra. He got up and saw the appellant inflicting knife blows on the person of Santra. Sarupa and Narendra had also seen the incident. All the three made attempt to catch hold of the appellant but flashing his knife he fled away. In the cross examination this witness deposed that lantern was there and the appellant came with covered face. Having gone through the entire cross examination we find that the testimony of this witness could not be shattered. Deposition of Jeetmal gets corroboration from the statements of witnesses Sarupa (Pw. 2) and Narendra (Pw. 3 ). Daulat Ram I. O. (Pw. 15) deposed that he arrested the appellant and on the basis of disclosure statement of appellant he got recovered the knife allegedly used in commission of offence. In the explanation under section 313 Cr. P. C. the appellant although claimed innocence and stated that the informant and Santra borrowed money from him and when he asked to repay the loan and demanded share from their land, he was falsely implicated in the case. The appellant however did not choose to lead evidence in defence. Even no such defence was introduce at the time of cross examination of prosecution witnesses. Learned trial Judge after considering the entire material on record found the appellant guilty and we see no infirmity in the impugned judgment. Charges under sections 302 and 458 IPC are found established against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
(3.) FOR these reasons, the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. .;