RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the abovenamed four appellants is directed against the judgment dated 9.9.1981 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 18/79 wherein the appellants Ram Niwas, Deva Ram and Rama alias Ram Narain have been convicted under Sections 302/34, 120B I.P.C. and the appellant No. 1 Ram Niwas has been further convicted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Appellant No. 4 Gheesu Ram was convicted under Section 182 I.P.C. but his appeal stands abated on his death during the pendency of the appeal. The appellants were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine.

(2.) THE prosecution case in nutshell is that the appellant accused Gheesu Ram himself lodged a report Ex. P.18 at Police Station Mundwa on 6.2.1977 at 3.50 P.M. wherein the stated that he and Ram Ratan were going to Nagaur at about 6.30 A.M. When they reached at a distance of one mile from the village they heard the gun fire. When they proceeded little further they saw that Kana Ram son of Jhumar Ram, Ram Niwas son of Jhumar Ram, Sukh Ram son of Bhima Ram, Ramdeo son of Bamna Ram, Mehram son of Jairam, Govind Ram son of Ram Chandra, Ram Niwas son of Ram Chandera, Raja Ram son of Pabu Ram, Ram Prasad son of Ramchandra, Paburam son of Sanvat Ram, all Jats, resident of Phirod were beating Badri son of Ram Chandra Jat, resident of Phirod by Farsi, swords, dagger and gun. They returned to the village to inform Ram Chandra the father of Badri but he was not available as he had gone to Nagaur. They also went to Nagaur but could not find him. Therefore, they informed about the incident to Ramdeo, Sarpanch who asked them to lodge the report in the police station. On this report, a case was registered under Sections 302, 147, 148 read with 149, I.P.C. In the beginning, Jayant Singh P.W. 14 conducted the investigation. He inspected the site and prepared the site map, site inspection memo, memo of the dead body of Badri. He seized pellets, wad pieces and the clothes and articles of the deceased. But he entertained doubt that the incident could not happen in the manner stated in the F.I.R. lodged by Gheesu Ram appellant. The investigation was taken over by Dy. S.P. Ram Gopal P.W. 15 on 8.2.1977. It is also relevant to mention here that Jugal Kishore P.W.7, uncle of the deceased Badri sent a typed complaint to D.I.G., Crime Branch, Jaipur that the murder of Badri has been committed by Ram Niwas son of Pabu Ram alias Ram Narain son of Jagdish, Hari Ram son of Jagdish, Deva son of Jhumar, Ram Kishore son of Ganesh, and Devkishan, Master, which was sent to Narain Singh, Inspector, Crime Branch, Rajasthan, Jaipur for necessary action. The case was investigated by Narain Singh P.W. 13 CO., G.I.D. Branch, Rajasthan, Jaipur from 4.6.1977. However, the investigation was again entrusted to Dy.S.P. Ramgopal on 5.10.1977. He again inspected the site and prepared the site map and site memo. On the basis of his investigation, he arrested the appellants Ram Niwas, Gheesu Ram, Deva Ram, Ram Narain and Jhumar Ram on 5.10.1977. He recovered the weapon of offence an axe from the appellant Deva Ram, Pistol from accused Ram Niwas and a bloodstained shirt from the appellant Rama in consequence of the information furnished by them under Section 27 Evidence Act. He also recovered playing cards from the Almirah in the house of Deva Ram on the basis of his disclosure statement.

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge held the trial against the appellants and two other persons Ambalal and Jhumar Ram (since acquitted of the charges under Sections 201, 212 and 120B I.P.C.). The appellants were tried for various charges viz. Rama alias Ram Narain under Sections 120B, 203, 302/34, 201 I.P.C., Ram Niwas under Sections 120B, 302, 302/34, 201, 182 I.P.C. and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, Gheesu Ram under Sections 120 -B, 182 I.P.C. and Deva Ram under Sections 120 -B, 302, 302/34, 201 I.P.C. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses. No witness was produced in defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on the appraisal and appreciation of the evidence produced before him convicted the appellants as stated above.