PEMA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.1.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, convicting the appellant Prma Ram and Dhula of the offence Under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to paya fine of Rs. 200/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. Both the appellants have also been convicted of the offence Under Section 364 IPC:

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that P.W. 1. Khuma Ram lodged an F.I.R. Ex.P.1/Ex.P.16 on 17.3.1995 at 9.15 A.M. at Police Station, Bekariya stating inter alia that after the Holi function, his brother Manna Ram in the night at about 2.30 reached at the house of his uncle P.W. 7 Natha. While he was sleeping, appellants Pema Ram and Dhula armed with a gun and arrow and bow arrived. They asked them to come out of the house. They dragged them to the house of Dhula. Natha somehow succeeded in escaping. It is alleged that Pema fired the gun at Manna Ram on account of which he died on the spot. The reason of murder was old enmity. He also stated that he received information of murder from his cousin brother Roopa Ram in the night itself. On this information, police registered a case for the offence Under Sections 364, 302, 302/34 IPC and proceeded with investigation. P.W. 11 Shivlal, in charge of the Police Station, Bekariya reached on the spot. He prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem. The appellants were arrested on 18.3.1995. A gun was recovered in pursuance of the information of the first appellant Pema Ram. After usual investigation, police Laid chargesheet against both the appellants for the offence Under Sections 364, 302, 302/34 and 323 IPC.

(3.) IT is contended by Mr. M.L. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellants that the alleged eye witnesses i.e. P.W. 4 Roopa Ram and P.W. 8 Odi are highly interested and partisan witnesses. Learned Counsel has read the entire evidence and pointed out number of discrepancies in the statements of the said witnesses. According to the learned Counsel, both the witnesses have been planted later -on. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. is ante timed. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that even the prosecution witnesses have admitted that at the time of the incident, second appellant Dhula was standing at his house and he did not participate. It is also submitted that there are no injuries of arrow on the person of deceased. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court.