HEERALAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment, one being repre-sented and the other having been received from jail, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur on 29th July, 1989, they are hereby disposed of by this single judgment. The accused-appellant was convicted for offence under S. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Brief facts leading to these appeals are that a written report Ex. P. 3 was lodged at police station, Sodala on 2.11.1985 at 11.30 a.m. by one Ram Narain, PW. 6, wherein it was alleged by him that he has a grocery shop (Purchooni) on Plot No. 124, In the morning when he was sitting on his shop at about 7.43 a.m. one person having little dark complexion and wearing black pant, came on a cycle, parked it and stood by the side of the road. After some time one Barkat Khan, known to him, came towards his shop. As soon as Barkat Khan arrived there this man who was standing there, suddenly inflicted dagger blow on the neck of Barkat Khan. He tried to intervene but that man rode the cycle and ran away. Barkat Khan started bleeding profusely so he went to call the father of Barkat Khan. He (injured) was taken to the hospital by two persons of the locality and his, father. He can identify the assailant if he is brought before him. On receipt of this report, a case for offences under Ss. 304 and 307 IPC, was registered and investigation commenced. The investigation was handed over to Om Prakash, S.I.',PW. 13, who reached Hasanpura and from there went to S.M S. Hospital, Jaipur. He gave a memo to the Doctor for recording the dying, declaration of the injured but according to the Doctor he was not in a position to give dying declaration.. He therefore, returned to the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of Ram Narain and one Shanker Lai.. He also recovered blood stained earth and prepared the site-plan. The Doctor who medically examined the injured, Barkat Khan, found the following injuries on his person :-

(3.) It is contended by karned counsel for the accused-appellant that the author of the F.I.R. and the eye witness PW. 6 has concealed the material facts from the very beginning, though he was very well known to the accused. He has chosen not to name him in the F.I.R. It is submitted that it is fully proved from the statement of PW. I Islamuddin, PW, 2 Abdul Kareem and PW.3 Liyaquatal that the accused was previously known to Ram Narain Liyaquatali has gone to the extent of saying that accused and Ram Narain are known to each other since birth. It is submitted that PW, 1 Islamuddin and PW. 2 Abdul Kareem are near relations of the deceased and they are highly interested in the complainant. It is submitted that it is fully borne out from the evidence that they reached the place of occurrence a couple of moments later then main occurrence took place yet none of them took the injured to the hospital or went to the police station to lodge the report. It is submitted that the investigation in the case had been unfair and suppressed the F.I.R. lodged by Abdul Kareem at the police station. Infact PW. 1 Islanriddin his also stated that he too had lodged the report, but the reports purported to have been lodged by Islamuddin and Abdul Kareem are not on record. Tne submission of the learned counsel is that no reliance should have been plaed on the statement of Munna Meatwala regarding procuring of a meat cutting knife for the purposes of commission of the crime. It is submitted that none of the witnesses examined by the ' proseeutidn had taken the injured to the hospital and it is not Known where the injured remained frorh'7.45'to 10.15 a.m. since he had been medically examined at 10.55 am.; why such inordinate delay has taken place between the time he was removed to the hospital and he was medically examined' has not been explained by the prosecution. It is submitted that no motive has been brought forward on record & the genesis of the prosecution story has not been putforward. The submission of the learned counsel is that the entire evidence in the case is such which creates great doubt on the correctness of the prosecution story and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.