SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE appellant was indicated before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 2) Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 58/2001 for having committed murder of his pregnant wife Sohan Bai,. Learned Judge vide Judgment dated October 23, 2001 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 IPC to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- , in default to further suffer one months simple imprisonment.
(2.) THE prosecution story in nutshell is like this:- On April 2, 1999 Jiyauddin Head Constable (Pe. 2), while he was posted at Police Post Chaumahla PS Gangdhar, received information that injured Sohan Bai (since deceased) was admitted to Chaumahla Hospital. Jiyauddin rushed to the Hospital and recorded Parcha Bayan of Sohan Bai (Ex. P-3) at 11 Am wherein she stated that while she was filling the trolly with sand at river Kali Sindh, her husband (appellant) came over there and asked her if she wanted to reside with him or not? Sohan Bai, who was pregnant and not in talking terms with the appellant, told him that she will reside with him still the appellant inflicted knife blow on the abdomen of Sohan Bai and fled away. On the basis of said parcha bayan formal FIR No. 58/1999 was registered for the offences under Section 307 IPC and investigation commenced. After the death of Sohan Bai Section 302 IPC was added. Autopsy on the dead body was performed. Appellant 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 Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 2) Jhalawar. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed. THE accused denied the charge and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 12 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 weighed the material on record. Death of Sohan Bai was undeniably homicidal in nature. As per post mortem report (Ex. P. 13) following ante mortem injuries were found:- 1. Stitched wound 3 cm long on the Rt. illiac Fossa. 2. Operation stitched acutical infrantill contusion present. 3. Comufited tube down the stranum coming out through operation. According to Dr. R. D. Verma (PW. 6) the cause of death was shock as a result of antimortem injuries on mastroid. Prior to her death injury sustained by Sohan Bai was examined by Dr. Ramesh Chand Khatik (PW. 3 ). As per injury report (Ex. P. 7) Sohan Bai received following injuries:- Stab wound 1" x 3/4" x depth not known stained on the right iliac fossa its edges are clean & sharp Active bleeding is present through this wound. Abdominal distension & pain present 5 months gestational height seen. Having scanned the material on record we notice that Vikram Singh (PW. 4), Shankar (PW. 5) and Babu (PW. 8) were examined as eye witnesses of the occurrence but they did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. It also appear that Dr. Ramesh Chand Khatik (PW. 3) through SHO Gangdhar made a written request to Ghanshyam Sharma, Tehsildar (PW. 9) to record the statement of Sohan Bai. Dr. Ramesh Chand Khatik in his statement deposed that he made a written request (Ex. P. 21) to Tehsildar Gangdhar to record the statement of Sohan Bai who was in a fit state to give the statement. Dr. Ramesh Chand Khatik further deposed that Tehsildar recorded the statement of Sohan Bai in his presence and he himself identified her. Ghanshyam Sharma in his deposition stated that he had gone to Govt. Hospital Chaumahala and recorded the statement of Sohan Bai (Ex. P. 19) in the presence of Dr. Ramesh Chand Khatik. Sohan Bai deposed that her husband Bhagga inflicted knife blow on her abdomen. Statement of Sohan Bai was forwarded to Judicial Magistrate Chaumahala by him.
(3.) IT is well settled that the dying declaration can be acted upon without corroboration. If the court is satisfied that dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it but the court must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imaginations. Having analysed the dying declaration of Sohan Bai, we are satisfied that what is stated in it is unalloyed truth and it is absolutely safe to act upon it. For these reasons, we find no merit in the instant appeal. It stands accordingly dismissed. . ;