VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.05.1987 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bharatpur, whereby he has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for offences under Sections 307, 307 read with Section 34 IPC, the appellants have challenged the same before this Court. The conviction and sentence of the appellants are as under : Accused-appellants, Vijay Singh and Rajveer, were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to 2? years of R.I. and were imposed with a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default thereof to further undergo a term of 3 months of R.I. Accused-appellant, Pratap, was convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to 2? years of R.I. and was imposed with a fine of Rs.500/-, in default thereof to further undergo a term of 3 months of R.I.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that according to the prosecution, on 19.09.1984, Ram Gopal (PW-2) lodged a written report at Police Station Sewar, wherein he claimed that the complainant and his family have an agricultural field in the village Hatheni. There was a litigation which was pending between the complainant and Maharaj Singh. About two months back the decision in the said litigation has been given in favour of the complainant party. Therefore, the complainant party has cultivated the field. Because of this, Maharaj Singh, Rajveer, Pratap, Vijay Singh, Man Singh and Shyambabu were bent on killing the complainant party. On 18.09.1984, during the day time, the Officers of the Tehsil office came to auction the property belonging to Maharaj Singh's brother. The complainant's brother, Siyaram, signed the documents as an attesting witness. Because of this, the accused-persons had animosity against the complainant and his family members. Therefore, the accused-persons came to the house of the complainant at 11:00 PM, armed with lethal weapons. As soon as the accused-persons came, the complainant locked the door of his house from inside. Thereupon the accused-persons threatened that they would burn the tractor of the complainant which was being used in the jungle. Hearing this threat, Udaiveer, the complainant's son, and the complainant, both jumped from the roof and ran towards the field where the tractor was. The tractor was standing as far as a field. While Udaiveer was running, Pratap and Rajveer, who had 'Katta' (country made pistol) and others who had ?lathies?, ran after Udaiveer. Despite the protest of the complainant, Pratap shot at Udaiveer. Consequently, Udaiveer fell. Taking him to be dead, the accused-persons ran away. One Saligram and Sushil Kumar, who were near the field, rushed to the rescue of the complainant. They brought his son, in a tractor, back to the village.

(3.) On the basis of written report, a FIR, FIR No.235/1984, was chalked out for offences under Section 307, 147 and 149 IPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and submitted ten documents. The accused-appellants did not examine any witness on their behalf. After going through the oral and the documentary evidence, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court. At the outset, it is relevant to point out that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant No.1, Vijay Singh, has expired. Therefore, the appeal, qua him, has abated.