SHIV NATH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS Shiva nth and Ramratan have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated February 28, 1979 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar whereby, the appellants were convicted under Sections 304 read with 34 and 304, I.P.C. respectively and each of them was (sic)enced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years.

(2.) A case as alleged in the first information report was this. That on 25th of March, 1978 i e. on the day of Holi at about 2 p.m. appellant Shivanath and one Ramratan were insisting to throw colour on the wife of Satyanarain Ram Badhas intervened a ad asked the parties not to quarrels Shivnath, then exhorted Ramratan to beat. Ramratan gave lathi blow on the head of Ram Badhas, who fell down on the ground and thereafter, Shivnath also gave a lathi blow on his hand. Many persons witnessed the incident. Ram Badhas who was taken to the hospital where he was given ordinary treatment. The injury was not considered to be serious and, thereafter, no report of the incident was lodged in the police station. Ram Badhas died on 29 -3 -78 as result of the aforesaid head injury and thereafter, Basant -kumar made the First Information Reports in the police station, City Kotwaii Ganganagar. A case under Section 302, IPC was registered and the usual investigation was started. During the (sic)urse of the investigation, postmortem examination on the dated body of Ram Badhas was performed by Dr. R.K. Gupta P.W. 1 Only there witnesses namely, Basantkumar P.W 2, Gourishanker P.W.3 Parasram P.W.4 were examined as eye witness of the incident. However, P.W.3 Gourishanker turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The accused examined D.W. 1 Fozdar and D.W. Satyanarain in defence. The learned Sessions believed the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner stated above.

(3.) IT is argued by the learned Counsel for Shivnath appellant that the learned Sessions Judge was in error in convicting Shivnath, as no injury on the hand of Ram Badhas was found. The first information report is delayed and, therefore, his conviction can not be sustained only on the basis o the two interested witnesses in the absence of corroboration from the medical evidence.