The reliability of witness testimonies and adherence to procedural requirements are crucial in establishing guilt under the Indian Penal Code.

V.S. Kokje, J.-Appellant Godu Ram has been convicted under Section 302 and Section 324 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with Rs. 50/-as fine and rigorous imprisonment for six months respectively for the offences.

2. On 16-8-96 at about 4.00 PM a telephone call was received by A.S.I. Vishnudev at Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur informing that a murder has taken place in the locality. A.S.I. Vishnudev with the police party went to the spot and recorded statement of Rukma PW 1 which was then registered as FIR. In the statement Rukma W/o. Ganga Ram stated that she has her own house in Shakti Nagar where she lives with her family. In one of the rooms in the house accused Godu Ram S/o. Punaram who was employed in the State Police lived. Godu Ram was also taking meals with her family and was making a payment of Rs. 150/-as a paying guest. At about 3.30 PM on the date of the incident she was sitting outside the door of her house cutting fodder. In the inner room of the house, Kamli W/o. Banshilal and Geeta W/o. Manakji were sitting, doing some work. Both of them called Rukma to tell her that noise of some altercation was coming from her house. On this, Rukma went inside and saw that the room of Godu Ram was open, tape-recorder was running on high volume and some noise was coming out from her kitchen. She knocked at the door of the kitchen which was closed from inside. Godu Ram rushed out from the kitchen with a bloodstained knife in his hand. Godu Ram assaulted her with intention to kill her, but she raised her left hand and received injuries on the finger of left hand. He threw her down and ran away. Geeta and Kamli came near her. They had seen Godu Ram running away, pushing her down,. She then went in the kitchen and saw that blood had spilled over the floor and Dhalki W/o, her son Govind was lying there. All the three of them saw that Dhalki’ s that had been cut and tripod was oozing out. She was already dead. She also stated that Dhalki had complained to her that Godu Ram had entered her bed two, three days earlier in the night and on receiving this complaint from Dhalki, Rukma had scolded Godu Ram on that. Godu Ram then blamed Dhalki and warned her not to falsely implicate him. Because of this, the relations between Godu Ram and Dhalki were strained and that was the motive for the crime. The accused-appellant took a defence of false implication and obliquely suggested that the offence was committed by Govind Ram because of suspicion that his wife was pregnant because of illicit relations with some one else.

3. Rukma PW- 1, Geeta PW-2 and Kamla PW-3 are the important witnesses who were present at the spot but none of them had seen actual assault on Dhalki. They had seen the accused coming out from the kitchen where Dhalki was killed, with a bloodstained knife in his hand.

4. Rukma PW-1 repealed the story given by her earlier to the police. She also stated that Dhalki had pregnancy of six months. In her cross-examination it was suggested to her that Dhalki’s husband had a suspicion about her character. But she stated that she did not know of it. She also denied the suggestion that Govind and Rekha killed Dhalki and said that she did not know about it. It was also suggested to her that she was not present on the spot as she had gone to the field and returned at 4.00 PM and knew of the death of Dhalki. She was further cross-examined on several points, but nothing of consequence which could discredit her statement came out.

5. PW-2 Smt. Geeta stated that she herself and Kamla were working in the house of Rukma. When they heard noise in the house, she rushed to Rukma and told her that some altercation is going on in her house. Rukma rushed to her house and went towards kitchen and then shouted. At that time the accused Godu Ram was running from that place. When the police arrived, she had gone to the kitchen arid seen Govind’s wife lying dead there. In her cross-examination she has stated that