- (1.) This jail appeal by accused-appellant Gopi son of Nand Ram, is directed against the judmgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sikar, dated 19.2.1973, whereby he held the accused-appellant guilty of committing the murder of Mahadev (since deceased) and convicted him under section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are : There was a long standing dispute between the accused-appellant and P.W. 12 Sadhu relating to field 'Rewdawala'. On the fateful day i.e. on 12. 6.1971 accused Gopi ploughed a portion of the field 'Rewdawala'. Sadhu protested and asked him to desist from ploughing the field but the accused refused to oblige him. Sadhu sought the intervention of the neighbours P. W. 4 Jodha, P. W. 13 Surja and P. W. 18 Jagdish, sitting in the adjacent field, all of them invited Gopi to negotiate for settlement of dispute between the parties but Gopi did not leave the field and went on ploughing it. At that stage Mahadev (since deceased) was called on the adjoining field and he was asked to persuade the accused to desist from cultivating the field 'Rewdawala.' Mahadev invited Gopi for settlement talk but he paid no heed to it and went on ploughing. Mahadev went towards the field where Gopi was cultivating. As soon as Mahadev entered the field Gopi left the plough and after being armed with an axe, came towards Mahadev and inflicted six incised injuries. Mahadev was seriously injured and he fell down in the field, who was taken by the villagers to Ringus Hospital for treatment but unfortunately he breathed his last in the way. The dead body of Mahadev was brought back on the field. In the,mean time first information report Ex. P. 1 was lodged by Mewa Ram P. W. 1 at the police station Sri Madhopur at 12.15 p. m. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is seven miles. After registering the case P. W. 17 Rambabu S. H. O. Sri Madhopur started for the scene of occurrence on the same day in a jeep in the company of Mewa Ram, Surja and Sadhu. In the way he learnt that the accused Gopi after inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased, jumped into a well known as 'Ramsagar.' The S. H. O. went towards the well and the witnesses Surja and others left for the field. The accused was brought out of the well in presence of P.W. 7 Jhutha Ram and P.W. 10 Ratan and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P/6. Accused expressed his desire to get the weapon of offence discovered and stated that he had thrown it into the well. The information memo is Ex. P/10. In consequence of this information axe Art. 5 was brought out from the well by PW.14 Gopal son of Ramnath, the seizure memo is Ex. P/11. A 'Danda Ex. A/2, a pair of Chappals Ex, A/1 and some other clothes left by Gopi on the scene of occurrence were also seized by the Investigating Officer. Autopsy on the dead body of Mahadev was performed by PW. 6 Dr. Kailash. Post mortem report is Ex. P/13, Dr. Kailash noticed the following injuries on the dead-body of Mahadev:- 1. Incised wound of 4" x 3' on the back of scalp with reference to parietal bone. 2. Incised wound 2" x 2" on the front of scalp ; 3. Incised wound 2" x 2" on the middle of scalp ; 4. Incised wound 2" x 2" on the left side of neck cutting the big vessels: 5. Incised wound 2" x 1" one inch below injury No. 4. 6. Incised wound 2" x 1" on the left mandible; 7. Bruise 2" x 2' on the internal aspect on the right thigh at its lower 13rd.
(3.) In the opinion of the doctor injuries No. 1, 4 and 5 were individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The police after usual investigation submitted challan against the accused in the Court of Munsif and First Class Magistrate. The accused-appellant after commitment was tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sikar. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses in support of its case out of whom P.W. 1 Mema, PW. 2 Bhagwana, PW. 4 Jodoa, PW. 5 Pokhar, PW. 12 Sadhu, PW. 13 Surja and PW. 18 Jagdish are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Besides their being the eye-witnesses PW. 1 Mema is the author of the first information report Ex. P 1. PW. 12 Sadhu and PW. 13 Surja are also the signatories to the first information report. PW. 16 Mohd. Umar is the main Investigating Officer of the case, P. W. 6 Dr. Kailash Chandra is the person who performed autopsy on the dead body of Mahadev. PW. 7 Jhutha Ram and PW. 10 Ratan were examined to prove discovery of axe Art. 5 as well as the fact that the accused was brought out of the well known as 'Ramsagar'. PW. 3 Mangal was examined to prove that just after the occurrence accused threw the axe into the well and jumped into it. The accused-appellant in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C. denied his complicity in the crime and stated that a fads case was framed against him. He further stated that when he was ploughing the field, witnesses PW. 13 Surja, PW. 1 Mema and PW. 5 Pokhar after being armed with Axe., Barchi and Lathi came towards him and asked him to desist from ploughing the field. At that stage Mahadev (since deceased) intervened. Being enraged of intervention all the three inflicted injuries on the person of Mahadev. Seeing this accused left the field but was perused and out of fear for his life he jumped into the well known as 'Ramsagar'. The appellant examined two witnesses DW. 1 Mangal Ram and DW. 2 Rameshwar in support of his plea. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge after appraisal of the evidence held that on the date of the occurrence the accused was ploughing the field prior to the occurrence, and it Could not be conclusively said that Nand Singh (father of the accused) had no possession on the disputed land. He accepted ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses, and held that accused-appellant inflicted all the injuries sustained by Mahadev on the date and time alleged by the prosecution. He disbelieved the plea raised by the accused and found the statements of the defence witnesses unreliable. On the basis of the above finding the trial Judge found the accused-appellant guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.;