PARIKSHIT BHARTI ALIAS BABLU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.12.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 12/96 convicting the accused appellant of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, indefault of payment to further undergo three months R.I. He has also been convicted of offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment to further undergo 3 months R.I. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case briefly stated is as follows:

(3.) ASSAILING the conviction, Mr. Sandeep Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Parikshit Bharti @ Bablu contended that the trial court has committed an error in convicting the appellant solely on the testimony of PW/2 Abdul Wahid. It is submitted that the statement of PW/2 Abdul Wahid stands contradicted on material particulars by the statement of PW/5 Kishan Lal particularly about the time of incident, which excludes his presence on the spot at the time of incident. Elaborating the contention, it is submitted that PW/5 Kishan Lal has categorically stated that at about 8.45 P.M. he was informed by some of the children about the incident. Thus according to him, the incident took place prior to 8.45 P.M. whereas Abdul Wahid has stated that the incident took place when they were returning after seeing the 'Garbha' dance. In the cross -examination he admitted that 'Garbha' dance was witnessed by him. Thus, it is asserted that this witness has not seen the occurrence which took place prior to at 8.45 P.M. As per the version given by the PW/2 Abdul Vahid, he went to the police station alongwith the deceased Raju but this fact does not find place in the police record. It is also contended that though, it is admitted by the prosecution that when the deceased Raju was taken to the police station, immediately an entry was also made in the 'Rojnamcha' but, the same has not been produced. It given rise to suspicion that F.I.R. has been substituted. It is also contended that learned Judge has adopted double standard in analysing the evidence of P.W./2 Abdul Wahid, in as much that his testimony has been disbelieved as against accused Jaikishan, but he been believed as against the appellant. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial court.