-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :: J U D G M E N T :: D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.594/2006 (Ganesh Lal Vs. The State of Rajasthan) D.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(2) Cr.P.C. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2006 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK), DUNGARPUR IN SESSIONS CASE NO.89/2005 (94/2005) - STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS GANESH LAL. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 14th FEBRUARY, 2007 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Mridul Jain for the appellant. Mr. JPS Choudhary, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MR. MATHUR,J.) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.06.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Dungarpur, convicting appellant Ganesh Lal of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. -2- 2. The prosecution case as disclosed during the trial is that the relationship between two brothers i.e. appellant Ganesh Lal and deceased Laxman were inimically because of the land dispute. PW-8 Mst. Geeta, wife of deceased Laxman lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Chhitri on 6.12.2005 at about 10.00 am, stating inter alia that in the morning at about 7.00 am of the preceding day, appellant Ganesh arrived at her house abusing them. Her husband came out of the house and questioned for his unruly behaviour. Appellant picked up a stone lying nearby and hurled at her husband hitting on his forehead. Having sustained the injuries, her husband Laxman fell down. She brought him inside the house and gave first aid. According to the informant, at the time of incident, PW-2 Haliya, PW-4 Harshraj @ Heera and PW-5 Soma Lal were present on the spot. She with the help of PW-1 Devi Lal and PW-6 Smt. Manju took him to the hospital. While under treatment, her husband succumbed to the injuries at the hospital. On this information, police registered a case of offence under Section 302 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. 3. After usual investigation, police laid charge sheet against the appellant of offence under Section 302 IPC. The appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case adduced oral and documentary -3- evidence. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence appearing against him. The learned trial court having found the prosecution case proved, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Public Prosecutor and have carefully scrutinized and analyzed the evidence on record. It is not in dispute that deceased Laxman died of homicidal death. PW-15 Dr. Mahendra Singh conducted the autopsy on the dead body of deceased Laxman vide Ex.P-21 and noticed the following injuries: 1. There is 4”x2”x1” irregular margin lacerated wound on left side frontal region of skull 3” above left eye. 2. There is 2' x 1” bluish red Bruise that below left eye on chick. In his opinion, the deceased died due to shock as a result of hemorrhage on left side of brain due to blunt injury on left side of skull. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel that there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged crime -4- inasmuch as all the witnesses of the occurrence have not supported of the prosecution case, as such, they have been declared hostile, except the highly interested witness i.e. PW-8 Mst. Geeta, who is none else but the wife of the deceased. It is of course true that the conviction of the appellant is solely based on the testimony of PW-8 Mst. Geeta but there is no bar to record the conviction on her testimony, if the same is found to be trust worthy. 6. We have carefully gone through her statement. She has reiterated the incident as stated in the FIR. We do not consider it necessary to restate the same. Nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit her testimony. The only criticism levelled against the testimony of this witness is that there is a delay in filing the FIR. We do not find any substance in the contention as PW-8 Mst. Geeta took her husband to the hospital, it was not possible for her to immediately lodged the information of the incident, as the priority was to attend her husband who was seriously injured. Since the accused was one of the member of the family, the others did not chose to inform the police. The statement of Mst. Geeta is natural and straightway. Her statement also finds corroboration from the medical evidence. Thus, we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case -5- of homicidal death against the appellant. 7. Turning to the nature of the offence, it clearly appears that the incident took all of sudden. The appellant had no intention to commit murder. However, he can be attributed with the knowledge that his act would have caused death in the ordinary course of nature. Thus, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the view that it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC. 8. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant is converted from offence under Section 302 IPC to 304 Part-II IPC. The sentence is reduced to the period of five years instead of imprisonment for life. The fine of Rs.1000/- shall remains intact. Appellant Ganesh Lal S/o Vaga is in jail. He will serve out the remaining part of the sentence. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. (N.N.MATHUR), J. ms rathore