RAVINDRA SINGH ALIAS DHOLIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of the same judgment and order dated 30th April, 2007 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Sessions case No. 29/07, whereby the trial court convicted the accused Ravindra Singh @ Dholiya for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay the fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, and acquitted the said accused from the charges levelled against him for the offence under Sections 147,148 and 149 of IPC. The trial court also acquitted the accused Jasveer Singh and Prabhu Singh from the charges levelled against them for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. It appears that the complainant Bhawani Singh had also preferred the DB Cr. Revision Petition being No. 959/07 against the said judgment of the trial court acquitting the said two accused, however, the said revision petition came to be dismissed by this court as per the order dated 3.2.2011, granting the complainant liberty to assist the learned Public Prosecutor in the Cr. Appeal No. 28/2010 filed by the State. Accordingly, the Registry was directed to show the name of the learned advocate Mr. V.S. Yadav as the counsel for the complainant in the said appeal.

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the complainant Bhawani Singh submitted a report to the SHO, P.S. Buhana, District Jhunjhunu on 5.7.02 at about 9.00 P.M., on the basis of which an FIR being No. 176/02 came to be registered at the said police station at about 10.00 P.M. against the four accused i.e. Prabhu Singh S/o Ganga Singh, Ravindra Singh @ Dholiya, Kapindra Singh both sons of Prabhu Singh, Jasveer Singh S/o Jaswant Singh and two others for the offences under Sections 147, 149 and 302 of IPC. It was alleged by the complainant in his complaint interalia that on 5.7.02 at about 8.15 PM, when he and his brother were at the PCO, one Yogesh Singh S/o Narpal Singh came and told him that his father was badly beaten in the field of Narpal Singh S/o Bhur Singh some time back ; that complainant alongwith Kushal Singh S/o Ram Singh and Yogesh Singh S/o Narpal Singh went to the field of Narpal Singh and he saw that his father was lying there in a very serious condition ; that, therefore, he sent Kushal Singh to the village for getting some vehicle and sent Yogesh Singh to get the tractor ; that thereafter his father asked him to straighten his leg, which he did ; that when he asked his father about the names of persons who had beaten him, his father told the names of Prabhu Singh S/o Ganga Singh, Ravindra Singh @ Dholiya, Kapindra Singh both sons of Prabhu Singh and Jasveer Singh S/o Jaswant Singh and two other persons ; that within few minutes thereafter his voice stopped and, therefore, he rushed to the house of Krishanpal Singh, from where he gave information to the police station.

(3.) MR. Gupta has lastly relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Babaji Navle Vs. State of Bombay (AIR 1956 SC, 51), to submit that it is the duty of the chemical examiner to indicate the number of blood stains found by him on each of the exhibits and the extent of each stain, unless they are too minute or too numerous to describe in detail. According to MR. Gupta the chemical examiner while giving report at Ex. P.31 had failed to mention the number of blood stains and also the extent of each stain and, therefore, the said report could not be believed to convict the accused Ravindra Singh. @ Dholiya