SHARMA, J. - (1.) ON the fateful day of August 6, 1999 Chouth Mal was stabbed to death. The appellant was put to trial for having committed murder of Chouth Mal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu, who vide judgment dated June 10, 2002, convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- u/s. 302 IPC: To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. u/s. 324 IPC: To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution story is woven like this:- On August 6, 1999 Mohammad Iqbal, ASI PS Kotwali Jhunjhunu (PW. 14) recorded Parcha Bayan (Ex. P. 1) of injured Mukesh Kumar (PW 1) who was admitted in Khetan Govt. Hospital Jhunjhunu wherein he stated that on the said day around 7. 30 AM he and his father Chouthmal were standing out side their house. After his father proceeded to "haveli of Murlidhar Brij Mohan", Purshottam (appellant) chased him and inflicted 3-4 blows with knife on the person of Chouth Mal. When he (Mukesh Kumar) reached near his father, Purshottam struck knife on his left shoulder and back of left chest. Chouth Mal was removed to hospital where he was declared dead. On that parcha bayan a case under Sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Dead body of Chouth Mal was subjected to autopsy, necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses were recorded, the appellant was arrested 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) Jhunjhunu. Charges under Sections 302 and 324 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 15 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. PC. , the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. We have heard the contentions raised before us and with the assistance of learned counsel perused the record. Having analysed the material on record we find that Chouth Mal met with homicidal death. According to post mortem report (Ex. P. 12) following antemortem injuries we found on the dead body:- 1. Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x thorasic cavity deep (transversly and anterior side of left chest 5 cm below left breast. The margins of skin and muscles are cut sharply. 2. INcised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 4 cm deep on left lateral wall of chest in mid axillary line at level of left breast. The margins of skin and muscles are cut sharply. 3. Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm deep in left axilla 3 cm above injury No. 2 in transverse direction. The depth of would is directed slight posteriorly not penetrating the thorasic cavity. The margins of skin and muscles are cut sharply. 4.Abrasion 2. 5 cm x 2. 5 cm on anterior side of left leg just below knee joint. In the opinion of Dr. J. P. Bugalia (PW. 6) the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock due to injury No. 1 which was sufficient to cause death. Injuries sustained by informant Mukesh (PW. 1) were examined vide injury report (Ex. P. 13) that reads as under:- 1. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on back of left chest 5 cm left to mid line at level of lower angle of left scapula. Margins of skin and muscles are cut sharply. 2. Incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm x muscle deep on anterior side of proximal half of left arm (slight oblique in direction) skin margins and muscles are cut sharply. Bleeding started on removing dressing. The only contention of Mr. Satyapal Poshwal, learned Amicus Curiae, is that incident occurred on account of sudden provocation. The appellant had no intention to cause the injuries but it was the deceased who created such a situation that the appellant was left with no option. According to learned counsel charge under section 302 IPC could not be established against the appellant and at the most he could be convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
(3.) WE find no merit in the submission of learned counsel. A look at the testimony of Mukesh (PW. 1) reveals that while Chouth Mal proceeded towards Haveli the appellant followed him and asked Chouth Mal as to for what purpose he was looking at him? Chouth Mal replied that what was he looking at him. The appellant then immediately inflicted knife blows on the abdomen and chest. When Mukesh made attempt to intervene, appellant gave blows with knife on the left shoulder and back of Mukesh. WE notice that even after searching cross examination the testimony of Mukesh could not be shattered. Surendra Dixit (PW. 13) who conducted investigation of the case, got recovered knife stained with blood vide recovery memo (Ex. P. 7) on the basis of disclosure statement of the appellant (Ex. P. 21 ). Considering. He deliberately caused injuries on the most vital parts of the body and the injury on the left side of chest proved fatal. The appellant even did not spare intervenor Mukesh and caused two incised wounds on his person. In these circumstances, we find that learned trial judge rightly convicted appellant under Sections 302 and 324 IPC. We see no merit in the appeal and the same stands accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant under sections 302 & 324 IPC are confirmed. .;