Advocates:
['SRIRAM YADAV', '', 'SANTOSH KUMAR JAIN', 'PP']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1040/2013

Jai Singh s/o Bhawar Singh, by caste Rajput, resident of village

Nangal Saaliya, Police Station Kot Kasim, Distt. Alwar.

(At present confined in Distt. Jail, Alwar)

----Accused-Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan through its Public Prosecutor.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Aladeen Khan, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

Judgment

25/02/2019

By this appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated 5^th

July, 2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1,

Kishangarhbas, Alwar in Session Case No.14/10(20/11)(26/11).

The accused-appellant was convicted for offence under Section

302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of

Rs.50,000/-, in case of default to pay fine, to further undergo one

year rigorous imprisonment. The trial court directed to pay a sum

of Rs.40,000/- as compensation out of the amount of fine.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that incidence took

place under sudden provocation and on the spur of moment, thus

a case for offence under Section 302 IPC was not made out. It is

moreso when weapon used in the occurrence is such which

remains readily available in the villages.

(2 of 4)

[CRLA-1040/2013]

Referring to the facts of this case, it is stated that accused-

Jaisingh was trimming the tree. The deceased-Prithvi Singh came

and asked him not to do it. On hearing the aforesaid, the accused

gave two blows to the deceased by an axe. The injuries out of

which were on the head and neck. The accused ran away from the

scene of occurrence immediately when complainant-Matu Singh

came on the spot. Thereafter, Laman Singh and Parkash also

reached there. They had also seen the occurrence. The deceased

ultimately succumbed to injuries and it was on the spot.

The incidence was reported to police and, accordingly, an FIR

No.99/08 was registered for offence under Section 302 IPC. After

investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused. The

trial court, thereupon, framed charge for offence under Section

302 IPC and explained it to the accused. He denied the charge,

thus trial commenced.

In trial, the prosecution produced thirteen witnesses and

seventeen documents to support its case. In defence, four

documents were produced by the accused. His statement was

recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C The prosecution could prove its

case not only by producing eye-witnesses to the occurrence but

recovery of the weapon and other evidence.

Learned counsel for appellant has not disputed the incidence

but it is said to be under sudden provocation and took place on

the spur of moment. It was when accused was trimming the tree

and the deceased asked him not to do it, rather, orally forbid him

to do so. At that stage and seems to be under anger, the accused

used an axe for causing two blows to the deceased. In view of the

above, prayer of learned counsel for appellant is to bring the

(3 of 4)

[CRLA-1040/2013]

present case under Section 304 Part-I IPC instead of Section 302

IPC.

Learned counsel for appellant has made reference of

Sections 300 and 304 Part-I IPC to support his argument.

Referring to the evidence of PW1-Amar Singh, PW3-Maman Singh,

PW4-Hajari Singh, PW5-Prakash, PW7-Ranbeer Singh, PW9-

Kishore and PW13-Prashant Sharma, it is stated that none of them

were eye-witnesses but the trial court has relied on their

statements and for that, even of PW6-Matu Singh.

We find that evidence led by the prosecution was sufficient to

prove the incidence. Whether this case falls under Section 302 IPC

or under one of the exceptions given under Section 300 IPC is

required to be examined. Accordingly, we are considering evidence

produced by the prosecution for the aforesaid. The evidence led

by the prosecution does n