BRIJ LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of conviction dated 10th December, 1990 propounded by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby he has sentenced Brij Lal, Kohli Ram and Nanak Chand to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1, 000/ - each for offence under section 304 RPC Part -II read with Section 34 RPC and further convicted and sentenced Romesh Chander, Parkash, Feji Ram, Rattan Lal, Mst.Kenu, Mst.Guddi w/o Rattan Lal and Mst Guddi w/o Romesh Chander to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/ - each under Section 323 RPC, and also further convicted all the appellants/accused and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/ -each for offence under Section 147 RPC and also sentenced to one month rigorous imprisonment each under Section 447 RPC and that all the sentences to run concurrently in giving credit of the period of detention already undergone during the currency of investigation, enquiry or trial to the accused; and further in default of payment of respective fines, the appellants /accused Brij Lal, Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram would undergo further simple imprisonment for three months, accused Romesh Chander, Parkash, Feji Ram, Rattan Lal, Titru Ram, Mst.Kenu, Mst.Guddi w/o Rattan Lal and Mst.Guddi w/o Romesh Chander to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month each and further all the accused would suffer further simple imprisonment for one month each.

(2.) FACTS that culminated in the prosecution of the accused taken from the judgement of the Trial Court in resume may be noticed.On the morning of 18.5.1987, PW Ashok Singh accompanied by his brother Jai Singh deceased had gone to their field for ploughing the land allotted to them.Jai Singh deceased started ploughing the land with the yoke and Ashok Singh digging the ridge of the land.In the meantime, all the accused shouting on the top of their voice that they would kill them, forced their entry into the land of Ashok Singh, Complainant and Jai Singh, deceased, clandestinely.The Complainant and Jai Singh stopped working. Where, where upon three accused, namely, Brij Lal, Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram proceeded towards Jai Singh deceased and caught hold of him, whereas the remaining accused held Ashok Singh and started assaulting him.The accused had thrown Jai Singh on the ground, Nanak Chand and Kohli Ram, accused, caught hold of Jai Singh deceased and Brij Lal accused, who was carrying a stone, sat on the chest of the deceased Jai Singh and struck him on his abdomen with the stone in his possession.On hearing their scream, Ashok Singh S/o Gian Singh, Ranjit Singh and Rattan Singh repaired to the scene of occurrence; on seeing whom, the accused fled away from the spot. Ashok Singh, Complainant, who had also received injuries, removed Jai Singh in precarious condition to the hospital, but he lost his breath on the way near Army Camp.PW Ashok Singh, Complainant, instead of going to the hospital, then proceeded towards the Police Station where he lodged a report of the occurrence (marked as EXPAS), which became the basis of First Information Report under Sections 302/307/147/148/149/447 RPC read with 34 RPC.The Police Swang into action.The dead body of the deceased was taken to the hospital for post -mortem.After effecting the seizure of the incriminating material recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC and on conclusion of the investigation, all the accused were finally sent up to stand their trial for alleged offence under Sections 302/307/147/148/149/447 RPC and the learned Trial Court found them guilty and sentenced them accordingly.

(3.) MR .M.A.Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, vehemently urged that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are related to the Complainant, their evidence is interested and smacks of partisan and unless corroborated by the eye witnesses, cannot be relied upon to hold the accused guilty and record their conviction.It is further stated that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective.The evidence brought on record is qualitatively and quantitatively insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt so as to record their conviction.Mrs.Shaista Hakeem, Government Advocate, on the other hand, argued that the direct evidence coupled with the incriminating circumstances and the manner of testimony relied upon by the prosecution is consistent only with the hypothesis that the accused only had killed the deceased.