CHHOTURAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONTENTION of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per version in the FIR lodged by Shankarlal, it was Birdhi Das, who inflicted a 'kulhada' blow on the head of Ramkumar Das followed by a general allegation against all the accused of causing injuries on his person by 'lathi' and 'dantli', iron road etc., whereas injured Ramkumar Das has sustained single injury. It is contended that in the statement of the informant that were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 27/4/2011, three days after the alleged incident of 24/4/2011, again the head injury of Ramkumar Das was assigned to Birdhi Das but this time, it was additionally alleged that Birdhi Das inflicted 'kulhada' blow on his head and Surja Das inflicted a 'dantli' blow on his head and, thereafter Madan Das, Chhoturam and Raman Das inflicted lathi blows on such 'dantli', as a result of which, he became unconscious. Learned counsel submitted that all other witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have made the similar allegations. It is for the first time when the statements were recorded in the court, prosecution witnesses especially PW1 Shankarlal, Budha Ram, Lalchand etc. made a substantial improvement in their original version by alleging that petitioner Chhoturam and Ramotar caught hold of injured Ramkumar Das and it was thereafter that Surja Ram inflicted a dantli blow on the head of Ramkumar Das and Birdhi Das inflicted a blow by iron rod on that 'dantli', Madan inflicted a lathi blow on such 'dantli' and Ghadsi inflicted a lathi blow on that very 'dantli', as a result of which, 'dantli' pierced into the head of injured Ramkumar Das. Other injured Shankar Swamy received simple injuries.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners argued that though a single injury was received by injured Ramkumar Das but all the subsequent improvements and also the version for the first time given in the court as to which of the accused was wielding which weapon, false allegation attributing specific role to each of the accused has been made. As per original version in FIR, it was Birdhi Das, who was alleged to have inflicted a kulhada blow. The co-ordinate bench has already granted bail to co-accused Madan Das and Ghanshyam, who are both alleged to have inflicted lathi blows on the 'dantli' that was hit on the head of injured by co-accused Surjaram. Case of the present petitioners is on better footing than that of Surjaram and Birdhi Das and on the same footing as that of co-accused Madan Das and Ghanshyam, who have already been enlarged on bail by order of the co-ordinate bench of this court dated 12/3/2012.