RAM CHARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case two of the persons are alleged to have caused injuries on the person of deceased and out of which one injury is assigned to the present petitioner and other one assigned to Maharaj Singh, who has been released on bail by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.2, Bharatpur. In this view of the matter the case of the present petitioner is similar because at this stage it cannot be said with certainty that the injury caused by the present petitioner is proved that, so the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable to Maharaj Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that co-accused Damo 5/0 Roop Singh also sustained an injury and a fracture was detected after x-ray of that injury. The accused petitioner also sustained a fracture on his little fingers but the injuries sustained by the accused party have not been explained by the prosecution, the counsel further added.

(2.) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from the case of Maharaj Singh and as per the facts mentioned in the postmortem report the injury caused by the present petitioner is proved fatal.

(3.) In this case the police has filed report under Section 173, Cr. P.C. and the statements of the witnesses were read over by the learned Public Prosecutor. In those statements, all the eye witnesses have alleged that the present petitioner was armed with a Farsa and the same was used by him and he had caused injury on the head of the deceased. A look at the post-mortem report shows that at this stage it cannot be said with certainty that the injury caused by the present petitioner is proved fatal. Moreover, the petitioner was armed with a farsa and as per the police statement he caused only one blow on the person of the deceased and did not repeat the blow.