Rodulal @ Jagdish vs State Of Rajasthan

Heard on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

There is delay of four hundred days in filing the appeal. The reason for delay has been given in the application. It is mainly due to financial constraints that appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation. The application is, however, silent as to how the money was arranged thereupon so as to file the appeal after a lapse of more than one year. It is not that the appeal has been filed with the support of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.

In view of the above, we do not find any justification for condonation of delay of four hundred days in filing the appeal.

Before taking decision on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we have even gone through the order passed by the trial Court convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-.

The facts on record show that the accused gave a call to the deceased on telephone. He abused him while deceased was consuming liquor with others. On the call given by the accusedappellant, the deceased went to the place of occurrence where the accused-appellant caught his collar and gave him a blow by a knife. It was strong blow in the stomach, thus the deceased Kalulal Banjara died as a consequence thereof.

The prosecution case has been supported by PW - 2 Kalulal and PW - 12 Bane Singh, who are eye-witnesses to the case. They have stated that the accused-appellant Rodulal had given a knife blow to the deceased. The recovery of blood stained knife is on the disclosure of the accused-appellant. The FSL Report is Exhibit P-13. The prosecution case has been supported by the other witnesses also.

The only argument of learned counsel for the accusedappellant is about sudden provocation by the deceased and only one blow by the accused, thus to bring it under Section 304 Part I IPC.

We have considered the aforesaid issue also but we do not find any evidence about sudden provocation to the accused. Repeated blows are not necessary to make out a case for culpable homicide amounting to murder. It is moreso when, the weapon used in this case is knife and blow was quite strong, causing death of the deceased. The injury of the deceased has been examined by PW - 1 Dr.Shakil Khan. His statement along with postmortem report also support the prosecution case. It corroborates the statements of PW - 2 Kalulal and PW - 12 Bane Singh. It is apart from the recovery of knife on disclosure of the accused.

In view of the above, we do not find any reason to condone the delay of four hundred days in filing the appeal when even after examining merit of the case, we do not find it to be favourable to the accused-appellant.

Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed.

Consequently the appeal is also dismissed being time barred.