STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. LIKHMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28. 1. 1987 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 21/85, by which he acquitted the accused respondents to the charges for the offence under Sec. 307/34 and 341/34 IPC.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:- On 16. 6. 85 at about 12. 30 PM, PW 10 Budharam gave statement to PW 9 Kishore Singh, which was recorded by him in Ex. P/15, stating inter-alia that on that day at about 10-11 AM he went to field for satisfying nature's call and at that time, accused respondents met there, who were having lathies in their hands and they started beating him and they beat him continuously, as a result of which, he fell down and since he was beaten so severely, he was not in a position to say which accused respondent caused which injury on his body and there was no enmity with them. He has further stated that he remained there is injured condition and, thereafter, he come to his house and then Gopal, PW 4 Shivji, PW 5 Chatraram, PW 6 Ratnaram, Tejaram and others came and they took him to the hospital of Nagaur in Jeep. On this parcha-bayan, PW 13 Rampal, Incharge of the Police Station Khatu District Nagaur registered the case and chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/30 and started investigation and during investigation, PW 10 Budharam was got medically examined by Dr. Hansram Godara, PW 7 and his injury report is Ex. P/5, and X-ray was also got conducted for so many injuries and the X-ray report is Ex. P/13. THE accused respondents were arrested on 25. 6. 1985 through arrest memos Ex. P/16 to Ex. P/19. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused respondents in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 26. 7. 1985, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur framed charges for the offence under sec. 307/34 and 341/34 IPC against the accused respondents. THE charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents. THEy denied the charges and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. THEreafter, statements of the accused respondents under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. were recorded. In defence, seven witnesses were produced by the accused respondents. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur through his judgment and order 28. 1. 1987 acquitted the accused respondents of the charges for the offence under sections 307/34 and 341/34 holding inter-alia:- 1. That PW 10 Budharam in his statement Ex. P/15 has stated that he has no enmity with the accused respondents, while PW 2 Durgaram states that father of the accused respondent-Likmaram was beaten and compromise took place. 2. That PW 10 Budharam has stated in his statement Ex. P/15 that he was lying in injured condition on the spot for a sufficient time, though PW 2 Durgaram says that when he reached on the spot, he saw that the accused respondents were beating PW 10 Budharam. 3. That PW 10 Budharam has stated in his statement Ex. P/15 that all accused respondents were armed with lathies, while in Court statement he has stated that one accused respondent- Likmaram was armed with kulhari. 4. That PW 2 Durgaram does not say how many injuries of farsi were caused to PW 10 Budharam. 5. That prosecution has failed to produce independent witnesses, though there were so many persons where the incident took place. 6. That prosecution witnesses, namely, PW 4 Shivjiram, PW 2 Durgaram, PW 6 Ratnaram and PW 5 Chatraram are relatives and interested witnesses and, therefore, learned trial Judge did not believe their evidence. 7. That PW 10 Budharam has himself admitted that accused respondents ran away form the scene after beating him and, thereafter, PW 2 Durgaram, PW 4 Shivjiram and PW 5 Chatraram came there and therefore, they could not be described as eye witnesses, while PW 2 Durgaram says that he saw the accused respondents beating injured PW 10 Budharam and thus, there are material contradictions and creates doubt on the prosecution story. 8. That there is evidence that when PW 10 Budharam went to satisfy nature's call, he was having a lotta, but no lotta was recovered and this also creates doubt on the prosecution story. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur acquitted the accused respondents of the charges framed against them. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 28. 1. 1987 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, nagaur, this appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan.

(3.) DR. Hansram Godara, PW 7 has been examined to prove the injury report Ex. P/5 and x-ray report Ex. P/13 of injured Budharam, PW 10.