HAKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 30.09.1977, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused Hakamsingh under section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and under Section 302 I.P.C. awarded imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Under section' 27 of the Indian Arms Act accused Hakamsingh was sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 3 month's rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted Chilasingh and Balkar Singh under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to further under-go three months' rigorous imprisonment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, acquitted Chilasingh for the offence under section 27 of the Indian-Arms Act.

(2.) THE incident which resulted in the prosecution of the present appellants along with Sarjeetsingh took place in the field of Mangalsingh in Rohi of village 9-BB on 24th of December, 1974 at 1 p.m. THE first information of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Padampur, on 24.12.1974 at 3 p.m. by P.W.6 Shivsingh, who was accompanied by Gurnamsingh, and Bansiram Sarpanch. It was mentioned in the first information report by P.W. 6 Shivsingh that at about 1.45 P.M. Mahendrasingh son of Tarasingh resident of 9 B.R. came to his house and informed him that a dead body is lying in the field of Mangalsingh and he has heard the noise of fires while he was in his field. On this information P.W. 6 Shivsingh went to the field of Gurnamsingh Panch and narrated the story to him. Upon which, Gurnamsingh also informed him that he had also heard the noise of fires at 1 P.M. from the side of the field of Mangalsingh and he had also seen one red colour jeep standing by the square of Mangalsingh. THEreafter Gurnamsingh and Shivsingh both went to the house of Bansiram Sarpanch of Ratewala and took him with them and lodged the FIR. Later on it was found that the dead body was that of Babasingh and the Police after necessary investigation presented the challan against the present three appellants as well as against Sarjeetsingh. THE case was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. THE prosecution in support of its case examined 18 witnesses while no witness was examined in defence. THEre is central evidence consisting of 2 eye witnesses, namely, P.W. 10 Puran Singh and P.W. 17 Chandram. This evidence of eye witnesses is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 1 Jeetsingh, P.W. 5 Bansiram, P.W. 6 Shivsingh, P.W. 7 Balkishan and P.W. 12 Roopsingh. THE prosecution has also produced Motbir witness for the recovery of various articles as P.W. 2 Ramrakh, P.W. 3 Gurbejsingh, P.W. 4 Karnailsingh, P.W.8 Pratapsingh, P.W. 13 Shri Hajarilal Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the identification of the Kripan of deceased Babasingh. P.W. 14 Dr. J.S. Bakshi conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Babasingh. P.W. 9 Budhram was the Head Constable at Police Station, Padampur, who took the moulds from the place of the occurrence. P.W. 16 Umedkhan was the A.S.I. At the relevant time at Police Station, Padampur, who made certain recoveries and took the dead body from Padampur to Shri Ganganagar and after post mortem examination handed it over to the family members of the deceased. This witness has also stated regarding the previous litigation pending between the complainant and the accused P.W. 18 Prahlad Rai was the S.H.O. Incharge of the police station, Padampur, who conducted the investigation. P.W. 1 Mahendrasingh was also the eye witness of the occurrence, but he has not supported the prosecution case during trial. P.W. 15 Jahangirsingh whose jeep was taken by the Police and certain recoveries were made to in his presence has also not supported the prosecution case. Both these witnesses P.W. 1 Mahendra Singh and Jahangir Singh were thus declared hostile. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge after trial acquitted accused Sarjeetsingh for the offence under section 302/34 LP.C. as well as under section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge also acquitted Chilasingh for the offence under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act but convicted all the three accused as mentioned above. Aggrieved with their conviction and sentence the appellants have preferred this appeal.

(3.) NOW we take up the circumstantial evidence of recoveries of empties. So far as empties are concerned, 2 empties were found near the main road at a distance of 60 yds. from the dead body which are said to be connected with the gun of Hakamsingh. These empties were not recovered at the place of the occurrence or near the dead body and therefore, they are not of any help to the prosecution. Even otherwise also, there is no evidence on record which could show that they were properly sealed and their seals remained intact throughout from the time they were sealed and upto the time they reached to the Ballistic Expert. The prosecution has not tried to lead any evidence on this aspect. The recovery of these 2 empties thus does not connect the appellant with the crime. NOW so far as the third empty is concerned, that is not connected with any of the gun, recovered from the accused. Regarding the recovery of 2 live cartridges, they are also of no help to the prosecution. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution we are not inclined to hold the present accused appellants guilty of the offence.