Full Judgment
B.R. Arora, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated May 30, 1985, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalore, by which the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant Foja Ram for the offences under Sections 302 and 324, I.P.C.
2. The incident which led to the prosecution of the appellant took place on October 23, 1983, at about 7.30 a.m. in the house of the accused in village Samrau where the accused appellant murdered his wife Smt. Sunder Kaur. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Sanchore, by PW 4 Harsan - the Sarpanch of the village - at about 9.30 a.m. The case of the prosecution is that accused and the deceased used to quarrel with each other on flimsy grounds. The quarrel took place in the night of October 23, 1983, and in the morning, the accused took up a Farshi and inflicted injury on the head of Sunder Kaur by asking that she administered poison to him in the night. The handle of the Farshi broke and thereafter the accused took-up a Lathi, which was lying nearby, and inflicted four more injuries on the head and neck of the deceased Sunder Kaur. Sunder Kaur succumbed to these injuries. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses. PW 1 Popat is the son of the accused, PW 2 Miss Dadam is the daughter of the accused, PW 3 Jetha is the milkman who was passing by the lane when the accused was giving beating to the deceased, PW 5 Hansa and PW 6 Bhanwar Lal are the two eye witnesses of the incident, who had seen the accused giving beating to the deceased. PW 4 Harsan Singh is the Sarpanch of the village, to whom Jetha (the milk-man) narrated the whole incident and who after being informed by Jetha went to the house of the accused, saw the deadbody of deceased Sunder Kaur and thereafter went to the Police Station and lodged the report at Police Station, Sanchore. He is, also a witness of Ex. P. 2 the site plan and Ex. P.3 the Fard Surat Haal Lash. PW 7 Dr. Mohan Lal Doshi conducted the post-mortem on the deadbody of deceased Sunder Kaur and found five injuries on her person, which according to the doctor, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. PW 8 Mool Dan is the constbale who took the sealed articles for F.S.L. examination to Jaipur. PW 9 Swaroop Singh is the Station House Officer. PW 10 Paras Ram is the Motbir witness, in whose presence the Fard Surat Haal Lash and the site plan were prepared. He is, also, a witness to the recovery of the clothes of deceased Sunder Kaur, which were recovered vide Ex. P4. He is, also, a witness to the arrest of the accused who was arrested vide Ex. P5. The prosecution, also, placed reliance over twelve documents. The, learned Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, also, convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is against this judgment dated May 30, 1985, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant that the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. The prosecution case rests on the statement of five eye witnesses, viz., PW 1 Popat, PW 2 Miss Dadam, PW 3 Jetha, PW 5 Hansa and PW 6 Bhanwar Lal. The evidence of all these eye witnesses is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PW 7 Dr. M.L. Doshi, who conducted the post-mortem and found five injuries on the person of the deceased, as well as from the statement of PW 4 Harsan the Sarpanch of the village and PW 10 Paras Mal.
4. PW 1 Potat Lal has stated at about 7.30 a.m. on the date of the incident, his father accused Foja Ram killed his mother Smt. Sunder Kaur. His father and the mother used to quarrel with each other. On the fateful night both were quarrelling with each other, whereupon his father asked his mother that she was quarrelling day and night and did not try to understand. Thereafter he took up the Farshi, which was lying in the Osara and inflicted injury on the head of his mother Sunder Kaur by this Farshi. She fell down. Hansa, Bhanwara and Babu - the neighbourers, who were seeing this incident, raised alarm. The handle of the Farshi broke and thereafter the accused took up the Lathi lying nearby and inflicted injuries by that Lathi on the head and neck of the deceased. This incident was witnessed by Jetha Rebari, also, who came there while the accused was inflicting injuries on the head and neck of the deceased. The accused followed Jetha Rebari and Jetha ran away. When he went near the accused, the accused, also, inflicted injury on his left hand by the Farshi, whereupon he went away in the other corner of the house. At the time when the accused committed the murder of Sunder Kaur, at that time Ku. Dadam and his younger brother were, also, in the house.
5. Similar is the statement of PW 2 Miss Dadam - the daughter of the accused. PW 3 Jetha - the milkman is the person who came there and saw the incident as well as the two Motbir witnesses, viz., PW5 Hansa and PW 6 Bhanwar Lal, who had also, seen the occurrence, have also, supported the statements of PW 1 Popat Lal and PW 2 Miss Dadam. From the statements of these five eyewitnesses, it has been clearly proved that it was the accused who inflicted injuries on the head of deceased Sunder Kaur, after receiving these injuries, died on the spot. The prosecution has, therefore, been able to prove that it was the accused and the accused alone who inflicted injuries on the person of deceased Sunder Kaur and she succumbed to these injuries.
6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused-appellant was of unsound mind and, therefore, if any act has been committed by him on account of unsoundness of the mind then he cannot be held guilty for those offences. Though the argument has been raised, but no material has been placed on record that the accused-appellant was of unsound mind. There is only the statement of PW 1 Popat Lal - the son of the accused - who has stated that his uncle Mafa Ram is insane and his father, also, used to act like a mad. He used to beat his mother several times and whenever he used to beat, he used to say that he would kill her. Apart from it, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the accused was of unsound mind. Thus, there is no evidence on record, on the basis of which it can be gathered that the accused committed the offence during the period when he was of unsound mind.
7. The last contention, raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the incident took place on the spur of moment and there was no previous enmity or bad-blood between the accused and the deceased and, therefore, he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and at the most, the case against the accused is made out only under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. We have considered this aspect of the case also, and perused the evidence produced by the prosecution. The evidence produced by the prosecution clearly shows that the occurrence has not taken place most unexpectedly on account of some quarrel, but the fact is that the accused deliberately inflicted injuries by the Farshi on the head of the Farshi broke-down then he took up the handle of the Farshi broke-down then he took up the Lathi, which was lying nearby, and repeated four blows with Lathi on the head and neck of the deceased, which resulted in the death of the deceased. It cannot, therefore, be said that the incident took place suddenly or without any pre-meditation. If the accused had no idea for committing the murder of the deceased then he would not have repeated the blows. The totality of the established facts and circumstances clearly show that it was a planned incident and the accused-appellant can be imputed with the intention to cause the death of the deceased Sunder Kaur. The prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable manner of doubt.
8. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.