Honble SINGH, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

(2). The appellant Dhool Singh has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 14.12.1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Udaipur by which judgment the accused was found guilty of the offences under Sec. 302 IPC and Sec. 4 with Sec. 25 of the Indian Arms Act and was sentenced to imprisonment for life as well as a fine of Rs. 200/- under Sec. 302 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under Sec. 4 read with Sec. 25 of the Indian Arms Act and in default in payment of fine he was directed to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days.

(3). The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows :

(4). On 15.7.1989 Magan son of Devaji Garasia orally reported at the Police Station, Pahada that on the previous night at about 9 P.M. when he was sleeping at his house his son Ramesh raised an alarm "nkSM+ks ekjs, and on hearing his cries he went towards Dhool Singh son of Bade Singh Rajputs field. At that time Ramesh and Amar Singh son of Nansingh Garasia were standing in the field of the complainant and Amar Singh son of Shankersingh resident of Kaparwas was lying dead in the field. Ramesh and Amarsingh told Magan that some time ago Amar Singh son of Shankersingh was going from the house of Fateh Singh when in the way he was attacked by Dhoolsingh, who had a sword in his hand. Amar Singh thereafter raised a cry and on raising cry Ramesh and Amarsingh rushed to the spot and in their presence Dhoolsingh struck a sword blow on the neck of Amarsingh. As a result thereof Amarsingh fell on the ground. According to the first information report Ramesh and Amarsingh further told Magan that Dhoolsingh threatened to cut them into pieces if they dares to approach him and threatened Dhool Singh escaped with the sword. The dead body of Amarsingh son of Shankersingh was seen by Magan the first informant. He found a cut wound on the neck from which blood was coming out. It was also stated in the first information report that there was a long standing enmity in relation to some field between Amarsingh and Dhoolsingh and on account of that enmity Amarsingh was killed and there being no means of co- ming to the police station at night the first information report was being made in the morning. On the basis of the first information report submitted by Magan the police registered a case under Sec. 302 IPC and after completing the investigation submitted a report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. alleging commission of offences punishable under Sec. 302 IPC and under Sec. 4 read with Sec. 25 of the Indian Arms Act. Learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Kherwara before whom the report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge and later on the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Udaipur.

(5). Learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Udaipur framed charges under Sec. 302 IPC and Sec. 4 read with Sec. 25 of the Indian Arms Act against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges.

(6). During the trial the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses namely PW1 Magan, PW2 Nansingh, PW3 Shankersingh, PW4 Ramesh, PW5 Sangram Singh, PW6 Mansingh, PW7 Laxmilal, PW8 Bhanwarlal, PW9 Amarsingh, PW10 Dr. Ramesh Ahari and PW11 Amarsingh Station House Officer. The appellant was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and in his statement he alleged that the prosecu- tion evidence was false; that the deceased Amarsingh was his real nephew and there was no enmity between him and the deceased and that the prosecution witness Nansingh was not in good terms with him because there was a quarrel between him and Nansingh and to resolve that quarrel a Panchayat meeting was held in which a fine of Rs. 11/- was imposed. It was further stated by the appellant in his statement under Sec. 31

Click Here to Read the rest of this document