It was a muzzle loading gun of which the respondent held licence Ext.
Gomti Bai P.W. 1 and Prem Lal P.W. 2 ran after him and informed Jaswant Singh that the respondent had run away after shooting his wife.
He did so, and reached village Ramkhiriya where he found the respondent at the house of Ram Narain P.W. 7 .
He told the respondent that he had been called by Jaswant Singh, but he refused to go.
Gomti Bai P.W. 1 and Prem Lal P.W. 2 that the respon dent also stated that he would take rest in the same room with his wife, and both of them stayed in it.
Gomti Bai P.W. 1 and Prem Lal P.W. 2 , and the other circumstantial evidence on the record, as well as the companyduct of the respondent, and reached the companyclusion that, the chain of circumstantial evidence was companyplete and the defence taken by the respondent was false.
Tulsa Bai died as a result of gun shot injury from the gun of the respondent and in numberother manner.
The gun article C which was recovered from the room of the respon dent near the dead body and was taken in police custody, was sent for examination by the ballistic expert S. D. Gandha P.W. 19 .
It was sent for examination to the ballistic expert whose opinion Ext.
P l to police station Udaipura, which was at a distance of 10 miles, the same night, at about 10 30 p.m. It was mentioned in the report, inter alia, that Smt.
Tulsa Bai in village Man kapur, where he looked after the cultivation of his companysin Jaswant Singh P.W. 13 who lived elsewhere and occasionally visited Mankapur to supervise the cultivation.
Tulsa Bai shortly before the incident, but he also gave medicine to the respondent who said that he too was number feeling well.
Jaswant Singh asked Shobha Ram to go in the direction in which the respondent had gone.
Gomti Bai P.W. 1 but also by the statements of several other prosecution witnesses including Prem Lal P.W, 2 and companypounder Hari Om P.W. 4 .
Gomti Bai has clearly stated that the room was closed from inside and only the respondent and the deceased were there.
The dead body was found lying on the company and was sent for post mortem examination.
Gomati Bai P.W. 1 telling Jaswant Singh that the respondent had run away after shooting his wife.
Immediately thereafter she saw the respondent opening the door, and companying out of the room.
He therefore told Ram Narain P.W, 7 , son of Bhaiya Lal, to see that the respondent did number abscond, and came back to Mankapur.
He therefore companyvicted the respondent of the offence of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
The respondent, in the meantime, tried to run away from the house of Bhaiya Lal P.W. 8 , but he was brought back and was ultimately taken to Mankapur and kept companyfined in a room.
He said that he was also number feeling well.
In doing so the High Court placed reliance on the statements of Jawahar Lal P.W. 6 and Ram Narain P.W. 7 about what the respondent had told them about the incident, and took the view that although the respondent must be presumed to know that his gun was loaded, he did number know that his wife would catch hold of him and would grapple with him in her attempt to prevent him from going to the field.
He admitted that he was looking after Jaswant Singhs cultivation at Mankapur and stated that Jaswant Singh rebuked him on January 8, 1968, and that when he had gone out to answer the call of nature, he heard the gun shot.
He has stated that he found the gun in working companydition and that its barrel showed signs of discharge.
He was taken out and the investigation of the case was companymenced on the arrival of the Station House Officer.
When he began to run away, she and Prem Lal went after him and informed Jaswant Singh who was near the house at that time.
P 11 has been placed on the record.
He did so.
He did number plead guilty to the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. in the trial Court, and companytended that he had been falsely implicated by Jaswant Singh.
Shobha Ram P.W. 3 , village Patel, who lived nearby, came to the place of occurrence on hearing the gun shot and heard Smt.
Gomti Bai that when she took tea to the room of the respondent, she found that the door was closed from inside.
P 10 is also on the record.
It has been proved by the statements of Smt.
Respondent Digvijay Singh was also in the house.
Tulsa Bai, wife of respondent Digvijay Singh, was unwell and was resting in a verandah.
The statements of these two witnesses as well as the statement of chowkidar Jawahar Lal P.W. 6 show that while the respondent was under their watch, he rushed out of the house on the pretext of making water and was caught and brought back.
He was ultimately taken to Mankapur and kept inside a room until the arrival of the police at about 2 a.m. The evidence on the record further shows that the respondent went out on the pretext of easing himself and jumped into a well from which he was rescued and taken in police custody.
We have carefully examined the question whether the gun companyld have been fired in the scuffle to which reference was made by the respondent to Jawahar Lal P.W. 6 and Ram Narain P.W. 7 .
The High Court was in numberdoubt that the death of Smt.
The respondent however admitted that he was kept inside the room throughout the night.
He has also stated that the pellets which were recovered from the dead body companyld have been fired from it.
A company was provided for him near the company of his wife in the same room.
She was shifted to her room in the house.
He found that his niece Smt.
Tulsa Bai was homicidal, by gun shot injury, ana that the plea of the accused that Jaswant Singh P.W. 13 was responsible for the crime was absolutely without merit.
It has been proved by the state ment of village Patel Shobha Ram P.W. 3 that when he reached the place of occurrence after hearing the gun shot and shouts, he was asked by Jaswant Singh to go in the direction in which the respondent had run away.
It appears from the statement of Smt.
She knocked at the door and called twice that it may be opened, When she called a third time, she heard a gun shot.
The post mortem was performed by Dr. S.L. Sharma P.W. 14 whose report Ext.
The police arrived at Mankapur at about 2 a.m. , when the respondent was taken out for answering the call of nature.
The respondent was challaned on companypletion of the investigation.
The Sessions Judge placed reliance on the statements of Smt.
He tried to bring back the respondent, but he refused.
The police also recovered a gun article C from the house of the respondent vide memorandum Ext.
Tulsa Bai was unwell and was resting on company inside the room of the respondent.
The above facts and circumstances are themselves quite sufficient to prove, beyond any doubt, that Smt.
Tulsa Bai and her husband respondent Dig vijay Singh were resting.
He therefore informed Ram Narain that the respondent had companye after shooting his wife and should number be allowed to escape.
When she called a third time, she heard the report of gun fire in the room.
This has been proved number only by the statement of Smt.
He however managed to escape and jumped into a nearby well.
The position of the gun shot injuries therefore disproves the theory of accidental firing and shows that the shot was fired while Smt.
Gomti Bai P.W. 1 , who was serving as maid servant in the house, took tea to the room in which Smt.
The companypounder number only gave a companyamine Injection to Smt.
She found that the door of the room had been closed from inside.
The statements of Ram Narain and his father Bhaiya Lal P.W. 9 companyroborate the statement of Shobha Ram.
Jaswant Singh came to Manka pur on January 8, 1968, in the evening.
The respondent used to live with his wife Smt.
N. Shinghal, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the appellate judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated October 26, 1971, by which the companyviction of respondent Dig vijay Singh for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. has been set aside and he has been acquitted.
Tulsa Bai had succumbed to the gun shot injury and her dead body was lying on the bed in the room.
She knocked at the door to get it opened, and called twice.
He found the respondent at the house of Bhaiya Lal P.W. 8 in village Ramkhiriya, which was close by.
He sent report Ext.
It is alleged that Digvijay Singh opened the door immediately thereafter and ran out.
He returned to his house and saw Jaswant Singh standing in front of his room with a gun in his hand, and it was he who informed the respondent that the gun was fired accidentally.
The High Court took numberice of the companytention of the respondents learned Counsel that he was number in a position to support the version of the respondent about the incident, but held that it would be reasonable and proper to companyclude, on a companysideration of the circumstances, that the gun went off accidentally and the respondent had numberintention of killing his wife.
The High Court therefore proceeded to companysider the question whether the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the exception under Section 80 I.P.C. In that companynection the High Court made a reference to the statements of Jawahar Lal P.W. 6 and Ram Narain P.W. 7 who had stated that the respondent told them that when he wanted to go out to the field, his wife Smt.
