VIJAY SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are directed against the judgment of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran, dated June 14,1988; where by he convicted each of the accused -appellant for offence Under Section 30/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo two month's further imprisonment, for offence Under Section 447 IPC sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's further imprisonment and for offence Under Section 427 IPC sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's further imprisonment. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment; one having been filed through counsel and another sent by jail, the same are disposed of by this one judgment.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to these appeals are that one Mangilal resident of Telni lodged a report at polios station, Bapcha on September 3, 1986, at 11.30 A.M. where in it was alleged by him that while be was working at the place of Ramsingh Patel his son Bbagwan Singh came early in the morning and told him that his uncle Ram Prasad has been killed by Vijay Singh, Ramsingh and Lalji in his maize field. He rushed to the place and found that the dead -body of Ramprasad was lying in his house. On enquiry he was told by Kanhialal and Ram Narain that she -buffaloes of Ramsingh, Vijay Singh and Lalji were grazing grass in maize crop in the field of Ram Prasad which cattle Ram Prasad was driving out of the field and Ram Prasad was abusing Vijay Singh, Ram Singh and Lalji on which these persons entered the field containing maize of Ram Prasad and started beating bim with lathies Kanhialal and Ram Narain intervened and then the three accused want away Ram Prasad died on the spot On receipt of this information a case Under Sections 302, 447, 427 and 34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Postmortem examination of the dead -body of Ram Prasad was conducted on September 4, 1986 by Medical Officer Incharge. Government Hospital Chhabra. The Doctor opined that the death had been caused due to cerebral haemorrhage because of multiple injuries on the head which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. After completing the investigation police submitted a chargesheet against all the three accused -appellants. Charges were read over to all the three accused for offence Under Section 447, 427 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be triad. The prosecution examined 17 witneses in support of its case. The accused -appellants in their explanation Under Section 313 Cr. PC. stated that the prosecution story is false and that they bad been falsely implicated because Kanhialal witness was in their employment and money was outstanding against him which be was not returning, for this he joined hands with the rival party to make out this case. Defence evidence was led to prove alibi of the accused persons. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran accepted the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced the accused -appellants as indicated above.

(3.) MR . Gupta, appearing on behalf of the accused appellants, submitted that the prosecution story has been fabricated and the FIR has been anti -dated because the FIR, according to the prosecution, was lodged at 11 30 A.M. on September 3, 1986. but it has been received by the learned Judicial Magistrate on September 5, 1986 and was brought to him by a constable who was sent to lodge a report on September 4, 1986. It is submitted that the learned trial court has erred in placing implicit reliance on the testimony of Kanhialal P.W. 15 and Ram Narain P.W. 16. It is submitted that the statements given by these two witnesses are full of contradictions and that they have substantially changed the story given in their statements Under Section 161 Cr. PC and this part of the case has not at all been looked into by the trial court. It is then submitted that by no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that the accused had shared common intention in causing the death of Ram Prasad. The submission of the learned Counsel is that the incident took place early in the morning and that too spontaneously. It is further submitted that out of 8 injuries sustained by the deceased only one grievous injury has been found on his person. Thus, it is submitted that even if the prosecution story is believed, the offence at best for which the accused -appellants can be convicted would be one under s, 325 read with Section 34 IPC, It is then submitted that the statements of P.W. 4 Bharosi, P.W. 5 Bhagwan Singh, P.W. 10 Mangilal and P.W. 11 Babulal which have been relied upon by the trial court are not worthy of reliance. The story put forth by these witnesses is far from truth and cannot be accepted. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case prosecution has failed to prove a case atleast Under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.