RADHA KISHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prosecution, story, in brief, is that somewhere in January 1970, one Sohan save Rs. 110/- to P. W. 10 Moju to be handed over to Mahadeo towards part payment of his debt of Rs. 400/ -. Moju went to Mahadeo's house, but he could, not be found there. When Moju was returning home via Rampal's house, Radha Kishan and Rathoria (Rama Avtar) met him at about 8 P. M. Radha Kishan told Moju as to why he was flashing torch light. Moju denied to have done so. Soon after Rathoria caught hold of Moju. Radha Kishan took out his dagger and inflicted certain blows therewith to Moju 4 or 5 dagger blows were inflicted on his head. Moju attempted to take to his heels to save himself. He first tried to enter a Brahmin's house in the vicinity. Both Radha Kishan and Rathoria pursued him. They caught hold of him and dragged him. Radha Kishan wanted to inflict a dagger blow on his chest. But the same was averted as Moju had placed his hands thereon. The dagger blows fell on his hands. Moju raised brawl, but none came forward to his rescue. He was again beaten mercilessly. He was dragged upto Mahabeer's house and then to a field where he was covered with a "chaddar" and was left. Next day one Bhaguta Mina arrived at the field. On his query he told him that Radha Kishan and Rathoria had given beating to him. After sometime his brother Madan P. W. 3 also reached the spot. Moju informed him that Rathoria and Radha Kishan had beaten him on the preceding day. First information report of the occurrence (Ex. P/4) was lodged with the police station Sardar, Sikar, by Madan. The police took over investigation. Dr. Bhagwati Prasad Medical Jurist S. K. Hospital, Sikar examined Moju on January 18, 1970. He noticed the following injuries on his person:

(2.) THE contentions of learned Counsel for the appellant are:

(3.) AS regards point No. I it may be stated that in the first information report (Ex. P/4) Madan stated that Radha Kishan and Rathoria had caused Pharsi blows to Moju. In the committing court's statement Moju introduced knife and before the trial court he said that accused Radha Kishan gave dagger injuries to him. First information report was lodged by Madan who had information from another. In such a case sometimes a fact gets omitted, which should have been mentioned and sometimes the facts are confused. In that view of the matter, no suspicion can be attached to such a statement because of this: vide State of Rajasthan v. Kartar Singh. The injured Moju had no doubt, said in the committing court's statement that knife was used by Radha Kishan but in the trial court he substituted a dagger. There is not much difference between a knife and a dagger in common parlance. Both have edged blades. When a man is assaulted and a number of injuries are inflicted with outrageous exhibition of intimidation and violence, the victim loses the balance of his mind and it would be difficult for him to judge precisely whether the weapon of offence was a knife or a dagger. Be that as it may the alleged discrepancy is of a minor character. The prosecution has succeeded in proving to the hilt that a sharp-edged weapon was used by Radha Kishan as a result of which Moju sustained not less than 14 incised injuries. The first point raised on behalf of the appellant, therefore, is of no substance.