J.R.Goyal, J. - (1.) THIS jail appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 24. 1. 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 2, Dholpur in Sessions case No. 118/2001 by which the accused appellant Jagdish @ Jaggo was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 & 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under:- Under Section 302 IPC : Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. Under Section 307 IPC : Five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) IN short the brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 9. 6. 1996 at 2:15 am `parchabayan' of Mst. Santo (PW. 10), wife of the deceased Rambharosi was recorded to the effect that her widowed daughter Guddi was remarried (nata) with Jagdish but on account of torture by Jagdish she left the house of Jagdish and started living with Ramesh of village Nagar. It is further stated that day before yesterday Jagdish came at her house and stayed with them. Yesterday night, Jagdish went from the house saying that he is going to watch movies. Thereafter she and her husband slept near the door. At about 1'o clock in the night Jagdish returned and slept there. About half an hour later, Jagdish got up and inflicted 2-3 blows by `baank' (sharp edged weapon) on her husband in order to kill him. When she tried to save her husband, accused jagdish caused injuries to her also by the same weapon. On her hue and cry, Deviram, Gopal, Mukesh came and thereupon Jagdish fled away. Her husband died at the spot. On this Parchabayan, F. I. R. No. 257/1996 Ex. P 4 under Sections 302 & 307 IPC was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dholpur and investigation commenced. On completion of the investigation charge-sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast track No. 2 Dholpur. Charges under Sections 302 & 307 IPC were framed against the appellant who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined ten witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed to be innocent. Learned trial Judge after hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated here-in-above. We have heard the arguments of Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and scanned the entire evidence on record. Before dealing with the contentions, it would be appropriate to take a stock of the injuries sustained by deceased Rambharosi. As per postmortem report Ex. P. 2 and the statement of Dr. R. C. Goyal (PW. 1) who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased, following injuries were found:- External Injuries 1. Incised wound :- Size 8 x 2 1/2 cm x deep to mouth cavity over face. R. V. side below eye & zygomatic bone. 2. Incised wound:- 13 x 4 cm x deep to cervical vartibra (C 7) which is cut & there is also cutting of spinal cord with meninges. R. V. side, asore lindavide with cutting of carotid vessels, nerves & muscles. 3. Amputation of left thumb at meta carpal bone. Thumb is attached with tag of skin with exposure of muscles, bone & tendens which is cut. + 4. Incised wound: Size 2 x 1/2 cm. x deep to muscle overleft femur lower 1/3rd posv. . . All injuries are antemortem in nature.
(3.) ACCORDING to PW1 Dr. R. C. Goyal the cause of death was shock due to excess bleeding caused by cutting of cartridge vessel right side. Thus, from the medical evidence, it is clear that death of deceased Rambharosi was not natural but homicidal one. The prosecution case is founded on the testimony of PW. 10 injured witness, Smt. Santo, wife of deceased Rambharosi and her neighbourer witnesses. Learned Amicus Cuariae on behalf of the appellant contended that the evidence of Smt. Santo cannot be relied upon to convict the accused as she is an interested witness being wife of the deceased. It is further contended that according to prosecution witnesses there was darkness at the place of occurrence, thus in that situation it was not possible for Smt. Santo to identify the person who murdered her husband. It is also submitted that no weapon has been recovered at the instance of the appellant and thus the offences are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. ;