GOVIND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal owes its origin in the judgment dated 26.5.2000 of the learned Sessions Judge, Kota convicting the accused-appellant under sections 304 Part II, 325 & 323 Penal Code to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment, two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.00 in default to further undergo three months simple imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The appellant was directed to serve all these sentences simultaneously.

(2.) The prosecution story as set out in the FIR is that on 3.10.1997 around 9.30 p.m. when Brij Mohan @ Raju, Dinesh Kumar, trader Dinesh and Satish Kumar were together, the accused-appellant alongwith other co-accused armed with pipes, sticks and iron rods came over there. Accused-appellant inflicted pipe blows on the person of Brij Mohan and other co-accused inflicted blows on the person of Satish Kumar, Dinesh Kumar and trader Dinesh. Intervenor Puran Prasad, the father of Satish Kumar was severely beaten by the accused person. Injury on his head was attributed to accused-appellant. When Hari Ram brought Jeep No. RJ 20/T 0474 to carry injured Puran Prasad to the Hospital, the accused-appellant inflicted blows on his right hand, right thigh and back. After admitting Puran Prasad in the Hospital, Satish Kumar lodged the FIR at 12.00 hrs. in the intervening night of 3/4.10.1997. Initially case under sections 147, 148, 149 & 307 was registered but after the death of Puran Prasad on 4.10.1997 it was converted under sections 147, 323, 325, 302/149 IPC. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge Kota. Charges under sections 302/34, 325/34 & 323/34 Penal Code were framed against the accused-appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. As many as 22 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Thereafter statements of the accused u/ section 313 Crimial P.C. were recorded. The accused examined four defence witnesses. Learned trial Court after hearing the submissions convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated hereinabove.

(3.) Mr. Ravi Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant canvassed that the trial Court was in serious error while believing on the testimony of related and interested witnesses. There are material contradictions in their statements and they could not have been relied upon. It was contended that Smt. Umesh PW 2 and Hariram PW 15 are made up witnesses and they did not see the occurrence. The FIR was lodged after so much delay without any reasonable explanation. As per the prosecution case at the time of incident there was no light and in the absence of light it was very difficult to ascertain that which accused caused the injuries on the person of the deceased. It was lastly contended that the Court below ought to have given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused-appellant. Reliance was placed on Suresh Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 84 and various other pronouncements.