HANUMANRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 1. 9. 1998 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbatsar by which he convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the following manner:- Name of accused appellants Convicted under/section Sentence awarded 1. Mithu 304 (1) IPC Seven years SI and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for one year. 325/149 IPC Three years SI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for one month. 323/149 IPC Six months SI and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days SI. 148 IPC One year SI and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month SI. 2. Likhmaram 304 (1)/149 IPC Seven years SI and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year SI. 325 IPC Three years SI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month SI. 323/149 IPC Six months SI and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days SI. 148 IPC One year SI and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month SI. 3. Hanumanram 4. Shravan 5. Manguram 6. Premaram 304 (1)/149 IPC Seven years SI and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year SI. 325/149 IPC Three years SI and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month SI. 323/149 IPC Six months SI and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days SI. 148 IPC One year SI and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month SI. All the above substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:- On 23. 6. 1992 at about 1. 30 PM, PW1 Todaram lodged a written report Ex. P/1 before PW 17 Hanuman Singh, SHO, Police Station Maroth stating inter-alia that on that day at about 1. 00 PM, he and other members of his family were sitting on the roof of his house and were talking. THEreafter, after entering into the door of his house and after climbing over the roof, the accused appellants Likhmaram, Mithu, Hanuman, Shravan, Manguram and Premaram and others, namely, Ramli, Prahlad, Ram Niwas, Rukma, Motiram, Lalaram, Mohani and Kamla beat Hardevaram (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), PW 2 Bholki, PW 1 Todaram, PW 3 Sarju, PW4 Rekharam and PW6 Sitaram with kulharies and lathies and his lips were also cut by accused appellant Mithuram and PW4 Rekharam was thrown away from the roof to the ground by accused appellant Likhmaram and it appeared that his legs were broken and got fractures. It is further stated in the report that PW9 Dularam and PW 11 Ganeshram were sitting alongwith them, but they did not speak anything because of seeing so many accused persons. On this report, police registered the case and chalked out FIR Ex. P/2 and started investigation. During investigation, deceased was got medically examined by PW14 Dr. Kamal Bajaj and his injury report is Ex. P/23 and deceased died in the hospital on 30. 6. 1992 and his post mortem report is Ex. P/6, which was conducted by PW 10 Dr. V. D. Kawiya. PW6 Sitaram, PW2 Bholki, PW3 Sarju, PW1 Todaram and PW4 Rekharam were also got medically examined and their injury reports are Ex. P/19, Ex. P/20, Ex. P/21 and Ex. P/22 and Ex. P/24 respectively. THE X-ray report of PW4 Rekharam is Ex. P/26, which shows fracture of lower 2/3 shaft of right tibia bone. THE accused appellants were arrested on 4. 7. 1992 through arrest memos Ex. P/28 to Ex. P/32. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused appellants in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Merta City. On 15. 12. 1992, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323/149, 325/149 and 325 or 326 IPC against accused appellant Mithuram and under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 323/149, 325/149 and 325/149 or 326/149 IPC against accused appellants Hanumanram, Shravan, Manguram, Premaram and Likhmaram and charge for the offence under Section 325 IPC was also framed against accused appellant Likhmaram. THE charges were read over and explained to the accused appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. THEreafter, the case was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbatsar. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses and got exhibited nearabout 39 documents. THEreafter, the statement of the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr. P. C. were recorded. In defence, two witnesses were produced and many documents were got exhibited by the accused appellants. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbatsar through his judgment and order dated 1. 9. 1998 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants in the manner as stated above holding inter-alia:- 1. That death of the deceased was homicidal one. 2. That the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sections 304 Part-I, 325/149, 323/149 and 148 IPC against the accused appellant Mithu, for the offence under Sections 304 Part-I/149, 325, 323/149 and 148 IPC against accused appellant Likhmaram and for the offence under Sections 304 (1)/149, 325/149, 323/149 and 148 IPC against accused appellants Hanumanram, Shravan Manguram and Premaram. 3. That the learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that injury on the head of the deceased was caused by accused appellant Mithuram and, therefore, he convicted him under Section 304 Part-I IPC and rest accused appellants were convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC for the death of the deceased. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 1. 9. 1998 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbatsar, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants.

(3.) THE injury report of deceased Hardevaram is Ex. P/23 and to prove the same, the prosecution has produced Dr. Kamal Bajaj.