SHARMA, J. - (1.) MANOJ @ Chuha, the appellant herein was indicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 56/2001 (48/2000) for having committed murder of Hemraj. The learned Judge vide judgment dated July 30, 2001, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as under:- u/s. 302 IPc To suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further suffer three months simple imprisonment. u/s. 452 IPc To suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer 1 1/2 months simple Imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) IT is the prosecution case that Bhagwan Singh, ASI, PW. 9 recorded `parcha-Beyan' Ex. P12 of Hemraj (now deceased), on May 23, 2000 at 1. 15 a. m. while he was admitted in J. L. N. Hospital, Ajmer. In the `parcha-Beyan' Hemraj stated that on May 22, 2000 at 11. 30 p. m. while he was sleeping in his house he heard noises coming from the house of Kalu Harijan. Hemraj then rushed to Kalu Harijan's house where he came to know that the appellant had entered the house of Kalu Harijan with bad intention. After the appellant was taken to his house, Hemraj came back and went to sleep. Around 12. 15 in the night the appellant armed with scissor trespassed the house of Hemraj and inflicted blows with scissors on his abdomen and elbow of left hand. On the basis of said `parch-Beyan', police station Ramganj, Ajmer registered a case under Sections 307 and 452 IPC against the appellant and investigation commenced. Injuries sustained by Hemraj were examined and as per Injury Report Ex. P. 32, Hemraj sustained following injuries:- 1. Stab wound 2 cm x 1 cm. x ? cm. deep on the front of lower side of abdomen on Hypogastrium region. 2. Stab wound 1 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm. x ? cm. deep on the right Hypochondrium region of abdomen. 3. Lacerated wound skin deep 3 cm x 1 cm. on the back of left elbow. Hemraj died on May 24, 2000 and the cause of death as per post-mortem Report Ex. P. 9 was severe haemorrhage as a result of injury to large intertine which was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. On the death of Hemraj, Section 302 IPC came to be added. 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), Ajmer. Charges under Sections 302 and 452 IPC were read over to the appellant who denied the charges 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. The learned trial Judge, on hearing final submissions, convicted and sentenced the accused- appellant as indicated here-in-above. Mr. P. R. S. Rajawat, learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that Hemraj sustained injuries in a sudden fight and there was no intention on the part of the appellant to kill him. In these circumstances, the appellant could not be held guilty under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel took us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Per contra Mr. R. P. Kuldeep learned Public Prosecutor opposed this submission and supported the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge. Having scanned the material on record we notice that Munni Devi, PW 4, wife of the deceased, is the star witness of the prosecution. In her deposition she stated that around 11. 00 p. m. the appellant had a quarrel with Kalu Harijan and her husband Hemraj had gone to the house of Kalu Harijan to settle the quarrel. The appellant was taken by his family members back to his house. Thereafter at about 12. 15 in the night while her husband was sleeping, appellant came to her house and inflicted scissor blows on the abdomen and hand of her husband. The evidence of Munni Devi gets corroboration from the testimony of PW5 Balkishan, who went to the house of Hemraj on hearing hue and cry and saw the appellant inflicting scissor's blow on the person of Hemraj. The evidence of Munni Devi and Balkishan could not be shattered in the cross examination as it inspires confidence. After the death of Hemraj, his `parch-Beyan' Ex. P. 12 comes within the category of dying declaration and we see no reason to disbelieve it. The dying declaration is supported by the testimony of Munni Devi and Balkishan. We have also scanned the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. It appears from the evidence of Shanti Devi, PW. 1 that the appellant was in the habit of entering the house of his neighbours in the dark hours of night. On the date of incident he trespassed the house of Kalu Harijan and touched the anklet of his wife Shanti Devi who suddenly woke up and raised alarm. Thereafter the appellant had hidden himself under her coat. Kalu then caught hold of his hand and dragged him out. Entering the house of deceased at 12. 15 in the night armed with scissors, in our opinion, was the calculated act of the appellant. The appellant was entered the house of Hemraj armed with scissors with the intention of causing bodily injury and caused the injuries to Hemraj which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the act of the appellant is covered under Clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC and he was rightly convicted and sentenced by learned trial Judge.
(3.) FOR these reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same stands accordingly dismissed. The finding of conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 452 IPC of the learned trial Judge is maintained. .;