1. This Criminal appeal is directed against judgment dated 3.1.2002 and order dated 4.1.2002 of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby he has convicted the appellant under Sections 304 part-II, 309 R.P.C and under Section 4/25 Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 304 part-II and one year simple imprisonment under Section 309 R.P.C and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 4/25 Arms Act.

2. The prosecution case, in nut-shell, is that on 29.6.1997 Asha Devi, Rekha Devi, Mst. Bima, and Geeta Devi, were going back to their respective houses, after answering the call of nature, when they saw appellant Banarsi Dass causing injury to the abdomen of Geeta Devi with a ˜Krich™. It is further alleged that the appellant, after causing injury to Geeta Devi, had tried to commit suicide by causing injury to his person. The intention, imputed to the appellant is that he wanted to marry Geeta Devi, which had been objected too by deceased Geeta Devi and her parents.

3. Geeta Devi was taken to Hospital where she was declared dead. Appellant was also taken to the Hospital on the same day. The appellant was charged under Sections 302, 341, 309 R.P.C and under Section 4/25 Arms Act.

4. On the basis of evidence recorded during the trial, learned Sessions Judge came to a conclusion that it was not an intentional murder, but the injury caused to the abdomen of the deceased Geeta Devi was such, which the accused knows that it may cause the death of Geeta Devi. He further holds that the appellant tried to commit suicide.

5. On the basis of these findings learned Sessions Judge held that a case under Section 304 part-II R.P.C was made out and, accordingly, convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 304 part -II, 309 R.P.C and 4/25 Arms Act.

6. Sh.M.M.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has questioned the finding / conviction recorded and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. According to learned counsel, the prosecution story is un-natural, besides being unbelievable. He submits that all the prosecution eye witnesses have stated that the place of occurrence was pitch dark and in view of the matter finding guilt cannot be recorded against the appellant.

7. He has further submitted that the circumstance, proved by the prosecution regarding sustenance of injury by the appellant on the date of occurrence and immediately after causing injury to Geeta Devi, is not by itself sufficient to connect the appellant with the commission of offence. He further submits that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, during the trial of the case, attributing declaration to the appellant that he wanted to end his life and had been been found injured by one of the prosecution witnesses, cannot be used against him because incriminatory circumstances appearing in the evidence, have not been put to him in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C for his explanation.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submits that prosecution evidence cannot be read against him, unless he is provided an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against him.

9. Sh.B.S.Slathia, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, submits that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case to the hilt and minor discrepancies in the evidence, here and there, do not discredit case of the prosecution. He further submits that the prosecution case stands admitted by the appellant, when he himself admits in his reply under Section 342 Cr.P.C, that he had been taken to the Hospital in an injured condition on the date of occurrence.

10. Sh.B.S.Slathia, further submits that appellant has committed heinous offence of murder and he cannot escape punishment on the ground that there is no substantial compliance of Section 342 Cr.P.C.

11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the statement recorded

Click Here to Read the rest of this document