LAWS(SC)-2004-9-100

STATE OF RAJATHAN Vs. MAHARAJ SINGH

Decided On September 02, 2004
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Appellant
V/S
MAHARAJ SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of the accused-respondents by the High Court. Originally there were three accused, but the first accused Gujarmal died during the pendency of the appeal. These accused were tried by the Sessions Judge, Karoli, Rajasthan for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. The Sessions Judge found them guilty of offences punishable under Section 304, Part I read with Section 34, IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years. Aggrieved by the same, they preferred an appeal before the High Court and the learned single Judge held that they were not guilty of any offence. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge, the present appeal is preferred by the State of Rajasthan.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 5-10-1992 at about 8O clock in the morning, deceased-Ram Swaroop went to the house of the first accused Gujarmal and told him that his camel had been causing damage to the cultivation of the deceased and requested Gujarmal not to allow the camel to stray into his field. Accused-Gujarmal got annoyed with the deceased over this complaint. Further case of the prosecution is that Gujarmal along with his sons Maharaj Singh and Bachan Singh attacked Ram Swaroop with lathis and beat him on his head and other parts of the body. As a result, Ram Swaroop fell unconscious. Ram Swaroops wife and the other eye-witnesses took him to Karoli Hospital. As his condition was serious, Ram Swaroop was referred to Govt. Hospital at Jaipur. But on the way to the hospital, Ram Swaroop died.

(3.) While Ram Swaroop was in Karoli Hospital, a Head Constable visited the hospital on receiving intimation from the doctor, but he could not take any statement from Ram Swaroop. On 7-10-1992, PW-2 Rajpal gave Exh. P-1 written complaint before the Masalpur Police Station and on that basis the case was registered and the investigation started. The dead body of Ram Swaroop was subjected to post-mortem examination. There were five injuries and all the injuries were caused on his head. There was a fracture of the skull and the doctor was of the opinion that the death was due to the injuries on the head which resulted in clotting of blood. PW-1 to PW-5 were the eye-witnesses. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased-Ram Swaroop. She deposed that on the day of the incident, her husband Ram Swaroop had gone to the house of Gujarmal and she came to know that Gujarmal and his sons had beaten up her husband and he was admitted in the hospital. PW-2 Rajpal is also an eye-witness. He deposed that on the date of the incident, Ram Swaroop went to the house of Gujarmal and told him that his camel had been causing damage to his cultivation. Gujarmal, Maharaj Singh and Bachan Singh had lathis with them. PW-2 deposed that Maharaj Singh hit Ram Swaroop on his head near the left eye, as a result of which Ram Swaroop fell on the ground. Then, Gujarmal struck another blow of lathi on Ram Swaroop. Then PW-1 and others took the injured to his house. PW-3 deposed that he had seen a quarrel taking place between deceased-Ram Swaroop and Gujarmal and that he also saw accused Maharaj Singh and Bachan Singh beating up Gujarmal with lathis on his head. PW-4 and PW-5 also gave a similar version of the incident. All these witnesses are residing in the neighbourhood and there is no reason to disbelieve these witnesses. The fact that deceased-Ram Swaroop was brutally attacked by these accused persons is proved satisfactorily. However, the learned single Judge of the High Court declined to accept the prosecution version merely on the ground that there was a delay in lodging the F.I. statement before the police. The learned single Judge was of the view that the incident happened on 5-10-1992 between 7 A.M. and 8 A.M. and the report was given to the police at 10.30 A.M. on 7-10-1992 and that this delay was not satisfactorily explained. This finding of the learned single Judge is challenged by the appellant-State.