BHANDARI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is being preferred against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Sirohi, Camp at Abu Road, in Sessions Case No. 93/2002 (67/2001 ).
(2.) FACTS relevant to the case are that on 21. 7. 2001, at 4. 15 p. m. , Complainant - Dashrath Singh gave a written complaint (Ex. P-17) to the S. H. O. , Police Station, Pindwara, on the scene of occurrence. It was stated that on 27. 01. 2001, at 4. 00 p. m. , he and his brother Dhana Ram were sitting in a hair dressing cabin of his brother at Bus Stand, Jhadoli. Jagdish Singh @ Pappu S/o. Jaisingh Chauhan came there and demanded money from his brother for liquor. His brother refused to give money, therefore, accused got annoyed and all of a sudden, taken out knife from his pocket and inflicted many blows to his brother. His brother sustained injuries on his hand, chest, as well as on his stomach. Jagdish ran away from the place of occurrence immediately, though his brother tried to stop by catching-hold of weapon, but sustained injuries on his hand. Lot of blood spread on the spot and while his brother ran after the accused, fell down on the road side and died. On the basis of report (Ex. P17), Constable Ganpat Singh, bearing No. 235, was sent to Police Station, Pindwara, where F. I. R. Was registered as Ex. P-31. After registration of FIR, Police conducted investigation and thereupon, filed challan against the accused Jagdish Singh under Section 302 of IPC before the Judicial Magistrate No. l, Pindwara, from where the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Abu Road. Vide order dated 21/23. 10. 2002, Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, transferred the case to the trial Court. The accused was provided challan papers under Section 207 of Cr. P. C. and, thereafter, vide order dated 10. 12. 2001, charge was framed under Section 302 of IPC. Accused denied charges and claimed trial. In the trial, 13 witnesses were produced by the prosecution and 31 documents were exhibited, whereas statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. and, in defense, statement of Rama Ghanchi was recorded. The trial Court, after recording its findings, convicted accused under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant was sentenced to the life imprisonment and penalty of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo one year's additional imprisonment.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that accused was not involved in the incident. Thus, he was wrongly being convicted. It was further submitted that Dashrath Singh was not available at the scene of occurrence, hence his statement is doubtful, therefore, wrongly relied upon by the trial Court. It was lastly urged that even the recovery of weapon is doubtful, thus appellant has wrongly been connected with the crime. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial Court and urged that Dashrath Singh -Complainant reported about the incident within a period of 15 minutes. Thus, there cannot be a false implication, in such a short period. It was further submitted that Dashrath's presence is well proved and weapon was also recovered in a short span of time. Thus, recovery cannot be doubted. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the material available on record. PW 11 Dashrath stated that he was sitting at his brother's shop and at about 4. 00 p. m. , accused came and demanded money for liquor and when his demand was not satisfied, the accused lost his temper and took out knife from his pocket. Thereafter, accused gave many blows to the deceased and ran away in the street, leading to bank. The deceased tried to run behind the accused, but due to the injuries, he fell down on the road side and died. Within 15 minutes of occurrence, Police came on the spot and a written report of the incident was given under his signature. Police recovered blood from the shop as well as from the place where the dead body was lying. At that time, Narain Rao, Kanhaiya Lal, Shanti Lal and Prema Ram were present. In cross-examination, said witness stated that he is also having a Cabin and in between his cabin and cabin of deceased, there exists 4-5 cabins. It was further stated that Ex. P17 was not written by him, but was written on his statement. At that time, Arjun Singh, C. I. , was present. The complaint was written by Purohit. The said witness explained that he means to state that accused gave 5-6 blows but in the written report given to the Police, it was mentioned that accused caused many blows, but the substance of two things remains one. The said witness denied the suggestion that at the time of incident, he was sitting in his cabin and went to the spot only on the receipt of information. The witness, however, clarified that he being a disabled person, was not in a position to run after accused. Thus, there exists no deviation in the cross-examination of the said witness, who is otherwise an eye witness. ;