MOHRA ALIAS MOHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur on 30. 08. 1989 whereby he convicted the accused-appellant for offence under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine he was directed to further undergo seven days' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that a first information report was lodged at Police Station, Mania district Dholpur on 6. 06. 1987 at 9. 30 pm. by Prayag Singh (pw. 1) wherein it was stated by him that in the noon one Mukandi and Pritam Jatav had come from village Kailashpur to borrow some money from his uncle When they were returning, Bachana son of Bhima Thakur, who is their neighbour and is a decoit, came to their house and started beating Jatavas. He was asked as to why he was beating these persons on which Bachana replied that he will beat them and they should not forget the earlier happenings when he had set on fire his field. Bachana thereupon said that in the evening, he would show it again. In the evening at about 6. 30 pm. , before sun-set, when he and his uncle Ramji Lal along with his brother Pappu and another uncle Chob Singh were on their tube-well in the field, accused-appellant Mohra armed with a revolver and Bachana armed with a 12 bore gun came there Mohra told the complainant as to why they were siding with Jatavas and they would have to pay the price for the same. Saying this, Mohra fired towards Chob Singh, which hit him in the stomach. He fell down as a result of injury and died on the spot. Bachana had fired on the author of the report Prayag Singh, but it passed away near his arm and he was not injured. On their raising alarm, villagers came along with their guns and they opened fire. On receipt of this report, a case for offence under Secs. 302 and 307 read with Sec. 34 IPC was registered and investigation commenced.

(3.) CHALLENGING the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating the evidence in right perspective. It is submitted that there is no independent witness available in the case and the four witnesses viz. , Prayag Singh (pw. 1) Pappu (pw. 2), Ramji Lal (pw. 5) and Bachhu Singh (pw. 9) belong to one family. It is submitted that deceased Chob Singh is brother of witness Ramji Lal and uncle of Prayag Singh, Pappu and Bachhu Singh. It is also submitted that name of Bachhu Singh does not find place in the F. I. R. also, It is submitted by learned counsel that the F. I. R. which is a written report and lodged son after the incident, is not corroborated by the medical evidence. No entry wound has been found on the stomach of the deceased, as mentioned in Ex. P. l. It is also submitted that it is subsequent to the post-mortem report that the Investigating Officer has made embroideries in the case and has made over writings in the statements recorded under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C where instead of word 'pet (PET) he has altered it to Peeth', (PEET) Similarly, it is submitted that over writings have also been done in Ex. P. 4, the alleged inquest report. It is submitted that there is no consistent evidence about the place of occurrence also. The complainant party admittedly had removed the corpse from the place of occurrence and has placed it on the cot. According to the prosecution own witness, no blood was found at the place where the incident is alleged to have been shown while it is submitted that the other witnesses have stated that injury was caused on stomach from the point blank range on the back of the deceased but according to the medical evidence, no blackening or tatoling was found.