HARI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarbhas (Alwar) dated 25/04/1989 in Sessions Case No.49/1988, State v. Harim Ram and others convicting and sentencing the accused appellant is under: Under S. 302, IPC Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500.00. in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months S.I . Under S. 307, IPC Four years' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.250.00 in default thereof 3 months' simple imprisonment. Under Ss. 3/25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act One year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250.00 in default thereof to further undergo 3 months' S.I. All the sentences were made to run concurrently.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Charan Singh Goojar, P.W. 1, lodged a report on 17/06/1988 at 8.05 a.m. at police station Bhiwadi, District Alwar wherein it was alleged by him that in village Shanthal nearabout the Johad Ki Pal there is a Kudi (husk of mustard plants) for dumping cowdungs etc. Towards the way is Surjaram's Bada for the same purposes and thereafter Hansaram's Bada. Way passes through a pucca well of Nihalsingh and through Surjaram's Bada. On 17-6-1988 at about 7.15 a.m. Ratiram was obstructing the way by putting shrubs on the way far going to Hansaram's Bada. At that place Surjaram, Krishan and Shriram, were standing armed with lathies. Charan Singh and Hansaram Master asked them not to obstruct the way. On this Surjaram and Shrirain hit Hansaram by lathies on his waist. Ratiram gave a Jely blow on the shoulder of Hansaram, as a result of which Hansaram fell down on the ground. Surjaram, Ratiram, Shriram and Krishan left towards their verandah and just then Karan Singh came there empty handed and told Surjaram why they should pick up the quarrel with children. On this protest Ratiram, Surjaram, Shriram and Krishan returned back and started quarrelling with Karan Singh. Krishan gave a lathi blow on the shoulder of Karan Singh and Hansaram Master tried to intervene and requested them by folded hands not to fight. Charan Singh also turned for returning home by pushing Surjaram. Just then Hariram came out in his varendah with a sten-gun and fired on Karan Singh, as a result of which he fell down and died. Hariram thereafter fired towards Hansaram Master which hit the latter on his hand. Hariram thereafter ran away and he was followed by Surjaram, Ratiram, Shriram and Krishan. It was also mentioned in the report that Karan Singh is lying dead on the spot, while villagers have taken Hansaram to the hospital. On receipt of this report a case for offence under Ss. 147, 148, 149 and 302, I.P.C. was registered vide F.I.R. No.46/88 and investigation commenced. Shri Premchand, S.H.O., P.W. 15, after taking down the report immediately started for the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex.P.2. He also prepared inquest reports Exs. P.3 and P. 4. He also collected the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and also recovered four empty cartridges of 9 mm which he seized and sealed vide seizure memo Ex. P,7. He also recovered one blood stained Jely with four horns. He arrested the accused persons Hariram, Surjaram, Shriram, Krishan and Ratiram and recovered one 12 Bore gun from roof of a room, one sten-gun with two magazines loaded, on the information and at the instance of accused Harirarn from his house. He also recovered lathies. The post-mortem of the deceased Karan Singh was got conducted. His postmortem report is Ex. P. 31. Injury report of Hansaram was also obtained. After completing the investigation a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant Harirarm and four others, namely, Ratiram, Surjaram, Shriram and Krishan was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tijara. They all were committed to the Court of Session, Learned Sessions Judge framed charge for offence under Ss. 302 and 307, I.P.C. along with S. 3 read with Ss. 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act against accused-appellant Hanram. He also framed charges for offence under Ss. 324 and 323, I.P.C. and S. 3/25 of the Arms Act against Ratiram and for offence under S. 323, I.P.C. against Surjaram, Shriram and Krishan. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) The prosecution in support of its case examined 17 witnesses. The accused denied the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. Accused Hariram in his statement under S.313, Cr. P.C. submitted an explanation that his brother Ratiram and son Krishan were being beaten by Hansaram, Karan Singh, Budhram and Shamser Singh by lathies and Furcies. Karan Singh was armed with a Furci, his brother and son both were loudly crying for help. He heard the sound at his residence and when he came out he saw them inflicting lathi and Furci blow on his brother and son. He protested as to why they were beating and despite Phoolsingh's intervention Karan Singh did not stop beating and he therefore, had no option but to open fire in defence and to save his brother and son. The learned trial Court held that it is established from the statement of P.W. 1 Charan Singh, P.W.13 Hansaram and P.W.6 Balkishan corroborated by the statements of P.W.16 Dr. Pooranmal Gupta that Hansaram and Karan Singh sustained injuries by gun fire by accused-appellant Hariram, as a result of which Karan Singh died. He held that it was borne out from the statement of the investigating officer that Ratiram and Krishan sustained injuries which were found on their persons at the time of their arrest which had been shown in arrest memo Ex.P.17. But regarding Ratiram's arrest memo and recovery of the gun at his instance were disbelieved by the learned Judge. Learned Judge also came to the conclusion that there are latches in investigation as well. He came to a categorical finding that Ratiram inflicted injuries on the person of Shiram and Krishan by Jely and on the person of Hansaram and Surjaram inflicted blows by lathies. Then Karan Singh came and thereafter Hariram fired with Stengun, as a result of which Karan Singh died and Hansaram sustained injuries. Learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant. Hariram as indicated above. He however found the case proved for offence under S. 323, I.P.C. against Shriram, Surjaram and Krishan and under S. 324, IPC against Ratiram and extended to them benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence the accused-appellant Hariram has preferred this appeal.