MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar dated June 10, 1982 by which the accused-appellant has been convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.
(2.) ON May 20, 1982 at 6 AM, the accused-appellant Ramlal lodged FIR Ex. P. 21 in the police station, Rawatsar (Sri Ganganagar) to the effect, in short, that he was working as a 'siri' of Kashiram son of Nathuram Jat, resident of Kanwasi (deceased), he started hating him as he used to badly abuse him, during the last night he was irrigating his fields alongwith him, while he was going for sleep, he inflicted injuries on his head, as a result thereof, he has died and apprehending danger from villagers, he has come to the police station. Thereon, a case u/s 302, IPC was registered and investigation was commenced. The accused was arrested. He gave information Ex. P.- 21 regarding the place where the dead body of Kashiram was lying and also information Ex. P. 26 regarding the place where he has concealed the axe and in pursuance thereof the dead body was found and axe was recovered, the memo Ex. P. 4 and P. 13 were prepared, description memo Ex. P. 6. and inquest report Ex. P. 7 of the dead body were prepared, site plan Ex. 5 and site inspection memo Ex. P. 25 were drawn, blood stained shirt of the accused was seized through recovery memo Ex. P. 23. The blood stained shirt and trousers of the deceased were taken through the recovery memo Ex. P. 11. Photographs Ex. P. 1 to P. 3 of the dead body were taken by photographer Phool Chand PW 5, the blood stained mud was taken through recovery memo Ex. P. 8, post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Kashiram was conducted by Dr. J. P. Swamy PW 11 and the post-mortem report Ex. P. 31 was prepared by him. The sealed packets were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur and the reports Ex. P. 29 and P. 30 from Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and Seroiogist and Chemical Examiner, Calcutta were received. The same day, statement of Laxman PW 1, Godhuram PW 2, Om Prakash PW 3 and Mansharam PW 4 were recorded u/s 161, Cr. P. C. 1973. After completing investigation, a challan was filed against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nohar who committed him to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Nohar. Charge u/s. 302, IPC was framed against the accused. He did not plead guilty but claimed trial. The prosecution examined Laxman PW 1 as solitary eye-witness; his uncle Godhuram PW 2, his brother Om Prakash PW 3, Mansharam PW 4 who saw the accused in nervous state, photographer Phool Chand PW 5 Head Constable Balvir Singh PW 6 who kept the sealed packets in the police station in his custody, constable Brijlal PW 7 who took the sealed packets to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. Sajan Ram Babri PW 8 from whom the deceased Kashiram took the irrigation turn for irrigating his fields on that day. S. H. O. and investigating officer, Bhagwan Das Swamy PW 9, Sarpanch Indarraj PW 10 and Dr. J. P. Swamy PW 11 who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Kashiram and tendered and proved 22 documents. In his examination u/s 313 Cr. P. C, the accused-appellant Ramlal admits that the police arrested him and he was taken by the police to the place where the dead body of Kashiram was lying. The remaining prosecution story and evidence have been denied by him. He further disclosed that about eight months before the occurrence the deceased Kashiram and his son Omprakash PW 3 inflicted grevious injuries to Ramswaroop with their 'kasis', due to this reason, Ramswaroop has committed the murder of Kashiram, he (Ramswaroop) has not been arrested as he has bribed he police, the (accused) has falsely been implicated in this case and at the time of occurrence he was in the house of deceased Kashiram. He has also stated that the prosecution witnesses have given evidence against him due to enimity and party politics. He has not produced any evidence in his defence. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the Amicus Curaie representing the accused, the learned Addl. . Sessions Judge, Nohar convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Ramlal as stated above. It has been contended by the learned Amicus Curaie that the trial court has seriously erred in holding that Laxman PW 1 has seen the accused Ramlal inflicting 'kulhari' blows to the deceased Kashiram and placing reliance on his testimony. He further contended that if the statement of Laxman PW 1 is excluded, there remains no evidence against the accused connecting him with the crime. He also contended that no part of the FIR Ex. P. 21 is admissible in evidence as it is inculpatory in nature and is hit by section 25, Indian Evidence Act. He further contended that the statement of Mansharam PW 4 is the most unnatural and has been connected by the police. He lastly contended that the information memo Ex. P. 24 regarding the recovery of the dead body of Kashiram and the information memo Ex. P. 6 regarding the recovery of axe are of no help to the prosecution as they were known to the police prior to their making from FIR Ex. P/21. The learned public prosecutor has. supported the judgment under appeal. It is well proved from the evidence on record that serious injuries were inflicted on the head and neck of the deceased Kashiram during the night intervening 19th and 20th May, 1982, as a result thereof he died and his dead body was found near his field. This part of the prosecution evidence has not been challenged by the accused. His version is that Ramswaroop had murdered him. The accused has not denied the fact that he was a 'siri' of the deceased Kashiram during those days. He says that he was at the house of the accused at the time of his murder.
(3.) THE question for consideration in this appeal is whether this murder was committed by the accused-appellant. THE prosecution has examined Laxman PW 1 as the only eye-witness. He has deposed that the accused Ramlal was the 'siri' of his father on the day of occurrence, his father Kashiram had taken the irrigation turn from Sajan Ram Babri PW 8 to irrigate his fields, he irrigated his field alongwith his father and the accused Ramlal, in the evening he came back to the house to take their meals, brought their meals from the house, both of them took their meals, after sometime he went to sleep and both of them continued to irrigate the fields. He has further deposed that he heard the cry of his father and saw that the accused was inflicting axe blows on him & his father was imploring and telling that he was his black cow. He has further deposed that the accused threatened him to kill if he did not go, he came to his 'dhani' and bolted it from inside. Laxman PW 1 has further deposed that due to fear, he remained in 'dhani' till the sun rise, after sun rise he proceeded to his house, in the way he met his uncle Godhuram PW 2, he narrated him the incident in the way and both of them came to the house and told the inmates of the house about the murder of his father by the accused. He has further deposed that the villagers came to his house, subsequently police also came there with" the accused in handcuffs and Mansharam PW 4 disclosed there that in the early morning he saw the accused Ramlal in the nervous condition and on interrogation, he disclosed him that he has committed the murder of Kashiram. It is correct that Laxman PW 1 was about 12 years of age when the statement was recorded on March 19, 1983. We have gone through his statement more than once. We find it the most unnatural. It inspires confidence. There is ho infirmity in it. It finds corroboration from the following facts and circumstances: (1) His description regarding infliction of the axe blows by the accused Ramlal on the person of his father Kashiram finds corroboration from the post-mortem report Ex. P/31. (2) The site plan Ex. P. 5 and the site plan mome Ex. P. 25 shows that fields of the deceased Kashiram were found irrigated and water was found therein. (3) It is well proved that the FIR Ex P. 21 was lodged by the accused at 6 AM on May 20,1982. This fact is admissible in evidence and not its contents. The distance of the police station, Rawatsar from the place of occurrence is about 15 Kms. This conduct of the accused is admissible u/s 25, Evidence Act. The accused has not offered any explanation as to why he went to the police station at 5 AM on 20th March, 1982. (4) Laxman PW 1 met his uncle Godhuram PW 2 in the way, he narrated the entire incident to him in the way and, thereafter to his brother Om Prakash PW 3 and other inmates of his house. (5) Shirt of the accused was found stained with human blood. This is well proved from the statement of the Investigating Officer Bhagwandas Swamy PW 9, recovery memo Ex. P. 23 and reports Ex. P. 29 and p. 30 of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and Serologist, Calcutta respectively, (6) The axe recovered at his instance was also found to be stained with blood. This is proved from the statement of I. O. Bhagwan Das Swamy PW9, information memo Ex. P. 26, recovery memo Ex. P. 11 and blood reports Ex. P. 29 and P. 30. (7) Godhuram PW 2, Omprakash PW 3, Mansharam PW 4, Indarraj PW 10, Sajan Ram Babri PW 8 and the investigating officer Bhagwandas Swami PW 9 duly corroborates him in all material particulars. Mansharam PW 4 has deposed that about 10-11 months ago at about 4 A. M. he was going from the village to his fields through the way of Kanwani village, he saw the accused coming from the opposite direction, at that time his shirt was having blood stains and he was nervous and on enquiry he told him that he has done away Kashiram with his 'kulhari'. He has further deposed that he came to the house of Sarpanch, in the way he saw crowd in the house of deceased Kashiram, there Sarpanch was found sitting, he told there to all that he has met the accused Ramlal in the way and he has told him that he has done away Kashiram with his axe. It may be mentioned here that his statement u/s 161, Cr. P. C. was recorded by the investigating officer the same day. The place of the said meeting last in between the place of occurrence and the police station Rawatsar. When the accused could go to the police station and lodged the FIR Ex. P. 21 there, he could have made the said confession to Mansharam PW 4. Nothing damaging has been elicited out in his lengthy cross-examination. His statement also inspires confidence. ;