RAM RATAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS Ra Ratan and Ramnarain have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated April 15, 1975 of learned Additional Session? Judge, Bikaner, convicting and sentencing the en as under: (1) Ram Ratan Under Section 324, IPC 3 months R.I. and afine of Rs. 200/ -,in default ofpayment of finefurther 15 days RI(2) Ram Narain Under Section 323, IPC Released onprobations

(2.) FACTS according to the prosecution were these. The two appellants and two co -accused Hetram and kishanaram were coming with a camel cart on 25.5.73 in the morning at about 7 a m, Ramkumar and Ramlal were grazing zing their she camels in their field. Appellant Ram Ratan and Hetram (who died during the pendency of the trial) were aimed with Barchhis, Ramnarain had a lathi and Kishanaram had a gun with him Hetram resorted to attack and Ram Ratan inflicted a Barchhi blow on the fore head of Ramkumar. Ramlal raised an alarm and his brothers Hansraj and Banshilal came there. The accused ran away and concealed themselves behind a fog -tree. Kishanaram fired his gun but none was hit Soon after Banwari also arrived and stated that Ramnarain appellant inflicted two lathi blows on him. There was previous enmity between the parties. Hansraj went to the police station and reported the incident at 11 a.m. A case under Sections 324 and 323, IPC was registered and the usual investigation was conducted and completed including the medical examination of the injured, Appellant Ramnarain was charge -sheeted for the offence under Sections 323, 30(sic) and 324 read with 34, IPC and Ram Ratan charged under Sections 307 and 307 323 read with 34, IPC However, the appellants were only convicted in the manner stated above At the out set, it may be stated that the following injuries were found on the person of Ramkumar and Banwari:

(3.) IT was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the interested testimony of the prosecution evidence should not be believed. Appellants were falsely implicated and truth is that the complainant party fired gun shots at them, for which, a report was lodged in the police station at 10 a.m., earlier in time, than the one lodged by Hansraj. The injuries on the person of Ramkumar and Banwari were self inflicted and a false report was lodged against the appellants to counter -blast the report made by Hetram. I have considers the arguments carefully. It may be that some incident took place before the incident under consideration i e assault by the appellants on Ram Ratan and Banwari. I am not required to consider the merit of the report lodged by Hetram at police station, Nokha. The question before me is whether in the circumstances of the case, it could be said that Ram Ratan and Banwari injured themselves and then a false report was lodged against the appellants, except conduct of Hetram in lodging the FIR of another incident, there is nothing on the record to warrant such a conclusion. It is also difficult to say whether Hetram lodged a true report or in order to save himself and other co -accused acted promptly in lodging a false report against the complainant party to hide their crime.