Honble B.R. ARORA, J – This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.12.92 passed by the District and Sessions Judge Merta, by which the learned Sessions Judge Merta, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Sec.302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

(2) Appellant Satya Narain was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta for committing the murder of his wife Smt. Kamla on 31-7-89 at 9.00 a.m. in the Nohra of Ram Lal Jat situated in village Arniyala. The facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR lodged by Sukhdeo Ram, the father of the deceased, at police Station, Padu Kallan on 31-7-89 at 11.45 a.m., which led to the prosecution and conviction of the accused-appellant in the present case, are that his daughter Kamla was married to accused-appellant Satya Narain. The relations between the accused- appellant and the deceased were strained and litigations were going on between them but ultimately the matter was compromised between the accused and the deceased. At about 9.00 a.m. on the day of the incident,his daughter Smt. Kamla went to fetch water from the water-pond in village Arniyala and was returning from the water- pond. When she was returning from the water-pond,the accused- appellant inflicted injuries to Smt. Kamla by a Kulhari in the Nohra of Ram Lal and she was lying injured in the Nohra of Ram Lal.The information of the inci- dent was given to him by Arjun Ram Jat of village Arniyala. The police registered the report and thereafter went to the place of the incident. The accused, by that time, had run away.

(3) The prosecution, in support if its case,examined sixteen witnesses. The accused pleaded alibi and examined two witnesses, viz., DW.1 Girraj and DW. 2 Chhotu Ram to show that on the day of the incident, the accused was not in the village and was working as labourer with DW. 1 Girraj Prasad on his work on Chardiya Bandh in village Sagoda (district Jhalawar).The learned trial court did not believe the defence version and relied-upon the evidence produced by the prosecution and after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused- appellant as stated above. It is against this judgment dated 5.12.92 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, convicting and sentencing the appellant that the appellant has filed this appeal.

(4) The nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution consists of the statement of three eye witnesses, viz, PW.4 Munni, PW.5 Kamla and PW6 Yasoda, which is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PW.1 Sukhdeo the maker of the FIR and a witness of the dying declaration; PW.2 Arjun Ram the Motbir witness before whom the dying declaration was made and that of PW 8 Bhanwara Ram and PW. 9 Hari Ram the other Motbir witnesses. PW.3 Gokul Ram and PW. 7 Ram Ni was were, also, the eye witnesses of the occurrence but they have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. PW.15 Cr. S.S. Diwakar was the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Riyan who conducted the autopsy on the deabody of the deceased. PW 10 Srawan Ram, ASI, PW 11, Bhopal Singh,PW. 12 Bhanwar Singh, PW.13 Hanuman Singh, PW 14 Ramdeo and PW16. Loon Singh are the police witnesses who were connected with the investigation of the case at one stage or the other. The prosecution has, also, relied-upon the dying declaration Ex. P.16 recorded by PW.13 Hanuman Singh, the investigating officer, in the presence of PW 10 Srawan Ram, ASI.

(5) The prosecution case, therefore, mainly rests upon (i) the statement of the eye witnesses, viz., PW 4 Munni, PW 5 Kamal and PW.6 Yasoda; (ii) the dying dec- laration made by deceased Smt. Kamla before her father PW.1 Sukhdeo Ram; (iii) the second dying declaration made by deceased Smt. Kamla before PW. 2 Arjun Ram and other villagers, and (iv) the dying declaration Ex. P.16 made by the deceased an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document