RAJU AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by both the accused persons against their conviction and sentences awarded by the trial court in sessions case No. 34/98 vide its judgment dated 3.4.1999.

(2.) A written report was lodged by the complainant Laxman Das at 11.30 PM. on 9.1.1998 at Police Station, Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar. According to the report, while he was at his home on 9.1.1998 at 6.30 PM. Thapa and Takla came running to him and informed him that accused Jaila and Raju were beating his son Mangu and were saying that they wiil kill him. Upon this, he rushed to the culvert and saw that the accused Jaila and Raju were assaulting on his son with a dagger and were saying that they would not leave him that day and they inflicted 4-5 blows. Then, they went away saying that he appears to have died. Meanwhile, wife of complainant Laxman Das also reached there. Mangu, his son was picked up and taken to the hospital, Ganganagar. During the course of treatment, Mangu died. On the basis of this report, a case was registered; investigation was conducted; charge-sheet was filed and the accused were committed to the Court of Sessions from where the case was assigned to the trial court for trial.

(3.) At the trial, accused Jaila was charged under Sec. 302/34 Penal Code and Raju was charged under Sec. 302 Penal Code simpliciter. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses and tendered into evidence 25 documents. The defence also tendered two documents. Considering the case of the parties, trial court first examined the point'whether death of Mangat Ram was homicidal or not. After considering the post mortem report Ex. R 9 and the statement of Dr. Om Prakash Sharma, PW. 5 who opined that the death was caused due to excessive bleeding from the injury, the trial court has held that death of deceased was homicidal. To bring home the guilt to the accused, the trial court considered the question of his culpability. The trial court considered the evidence of witnesses PW. 1 Laxman Das, P.W. 2 Smt. Usha, PW. 3 Takla and PW. 4 Thapa, PW. 4 Thapa in his statement has stated that he is a pavement vendor and his vending trolley is near the bus stand. At the time of incident around 6.30 P.M. the accused were standing near his vending trolley and 2-3 customers were also there. Deceased Mangat Ram came and met the accused persons. At that time, accused abused deceased Mangat Ram. While this altercation was going on. Takla P.W. .3 also arrived there and they rescued deceased Mangat and took him aside. After that, accused Raju and Jaila came near deceased and gave him 2-3 slaps and started dragging the deceased by holding his hands and legs. PW. 4 Thapa and PW. 3 Takla wanted to rescue the deceased from the clutches of the accused but they could not get him released. On this, Thapa and Takla rushed to the house of Mangu to inform the mother and father of deceased. The mother and father of deceased also arrived at the scene of occurrence. Jaila caught hold of deceased by his hairs and Raju inflicted dagger blows. They ran away from the scene after inflicting injuries. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he has seen Raju inflicting knife blows from 20 to 25 ft. At the time when he saw the deceased being hit by the knife, he was in standing position. The deceased was then taken to the hospital. The trial court considered the evidence of PW. 3 Takla who according to the trial court has stated in conformity with the evidence of PW. 4 Thapa. PW. 1 Laxman Das is the father of deceased and PW. 2 Smt. Usha is the mother of deceased. They have stated that while Thapa and Takla came and informed about inflicting of injuries to Mangat Ram, they rushed to the scene of occurrence. When they reached the scene of occurrence, they found that Jaila was holding the hairs of deceased and Raju was inflicting injuries with knife. When Laxman Das exhorted the accused, he fled away. Thereafter, the injured was taken to the hospital. The trial court has believed the testimony of these eye-witnesses and has discarded the defence suggestion that FIR was delayed. According to the trial court, the incident had occurred at 6.30 RM. and FIR had been lodged at 11.30 RM. The injured was immediately taken to the hospital. He was struggling with his life. So, such kind of delay cannot be considered to be of any consequence. The trial court has found that PW. 1 is corroborated by the fact that the incident had happened near culvert. Thapa has testified that the incident took place by the side of his payment vending trolley 'Rehdi' and has given details of the incident. PW. 10 Jeerudin, PW. 1 Laxman Das and PW. 2 Smt. Usha have also narrated incident which was started by the defence. Thapa, PW. 4 has proved that the occurrence started from Thapa's Rehdi and extended to near the square. The 'Rehdi' has been found turned up side down and non-mention of this event in the prosecution story cannot be considered to be of any consequence. The trial court has found the case to be proved against the accused and convicted the accused as aforesaid.