PRITHVI RAJ AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO appellants have been convicted by the learned Add 1. Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, vide his judgment dated 25.6.2001 passed in Sessions Case No. 37/97, for the offences under Sections 302 and 302/34, IPC respectively, and has further convicted them for the offence under Section 341, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life on the first count, while on second count sentenced them to simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 1.10.1995 Parcha Bayan of one Karnail Singh (P.W.1) was recorded in the hospital Sri Karanpur by the A.S.I., wherein it was deposed that, at about 5 P.M. on that day his brother Bhag Singh @ Bagh Singh was going to his in -laws' house, to bring his wife from her village, in that process when he was going on foot, and, reached near the house of Jamu Ram, the two appellants came out from their house, stopped Bhag Singh, and appellant Prithvi Raj inflicted injury with Lathi on the head of Bhag Singh, whereupon the victim raised a cry, then Gyan Chand informed the deponent, whereupon deponent went, at that time Sohan Singh had also come on the spot. At that time the two appellants were beating the victim. Sukhdev Singh appellant was armed with Gandasi and he was also inflicting injuries to Bhag Singh. According to the deponent he and Sohan Singh intervened. It was also deposed that the two appellants have bad relations with Bhag Singh, and therefore, incident has been committed. Thereafter the victim was brought to hospital and got admitted while he was unconscious. On these statements, a case under Sections 307/34 and 341, IPC was registered. However, in the morning Bhag Singh expired, and the offence of Section 302, IPC was added. The Police after completing necessary investigation submitted a charge sheet against the appellant Prithvi Raj alone. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the learned trial Court who framed the charges for the offence under Sections 302, 302/34 and 341, IPC. It was on the application of the prosecution that vide order dated 25.5.1996 cognizance was taken against the appellant Sukhdev Singh for the offence under Sections 302, 307 and 341, IPC. and his attendance was procured. Thereafter the charges were framed against both the accused persons, inasmuch as the appellant Prithvi Raj was charged for, the offence under Sections 302 and 341, while Sukhdev was charged for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 341, IPC.

(3.) IT may be noticed here that Sohan Singh has not been examined by the prosecution, while Gyan Chand has been examined as P.W. 3 who has not supported the prosecution story, and has been declared hostile. Likewise one P.W. 4 Ram Niwas has not supported the prosecution and has also turned hostile. Thus the case of the prosecution has rested on the testimoney of P.W.1, the eye witness, and P.W. 2 the corroborative witness, and of course the other witnesses being necessary formal witness, like that of recovery, linking evidence of seal, sending of articles to Forensic Science Laboratory, the A.S.I. who recorded the Parcha Bayan, apart from the doctor P.W. 7 Jaswant Singh and the Investigating Officer.