POONA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants Poona Ram, Nema Ram and Hema Ram all sons of Bhura Ram and Ram Prakash have been convicted for offence under Section 302/34, IPC by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat, District, Pali dated 4.8.2000 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. They have also been convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 325/34, IPC.

(2.) THE second appellant Nema Ram along with his brothers Poona Ram and Hema Ram stood trial on the charge of murder of Babu Lal the brother of his wife P.W. 3 Smt. Morki the star prosecution witness. The incident took place in two parts; firstly at the house of the accused persons in village Bera Shiv Sagar, Chandaval. The second and fatal incident took place outside the residence of the deceased in village Vyaso -Ki -Dhimdi. It is alleged that P.W.3. Mst. Morki was suspected to have committed theft of Rs. 300 -400/ - and passed on the said amount to her father and brother. On 25th June, 1998 at about 10:00 P.M., P.W.3 Mst. Morki after completing the house -hold work went to bed. Her husband Nema returned to the house in drunken condition. He was served food by smt. Kamla the wife of his elder brother. The mother of Nema Ram complained that Mst. Morki was not taking interest in the household work. It was also complained that she had taken out certain currency notes from the pocket of Poona Ram and passed on the amount to her brother and father. Mst. Morki was being assaulted by the appellants Nema Ram, Poona Ram, Hema Ram and her mother -in -law by hands and fists on account of which she sustained injuries on different parts of her body. Nema Ram also decided to despatch Mst. Morki to her parents house. A decision was taken to go to the house of Mst. Morki and entrust to her parents. On receiving message, Ram Prakash, also accompanied them armed with a gun. Nema Ram, Hema Ram, Poona Ram, Ram Prakash along with Mst. Morki armed with gun and Lathies reached to the house of the parents of Mst. Morki in village Vyaso -Ki -Dhimdi on a tractor at about 11:00 P.M. Poona Ram gave call to Morki's father P.W.6 Mohanlal. Babu Lal came out of the house. The appellants Nema Ram, Poona Ram, Hema Ram and Ram Prakash gave him beating. The cries attracted P.W.9 Smt. Sushila the brother's wife of Mst. Morki and many others. She was also being assaulted by the accused persons. Similarly; when Mohanlal came out, he was also given beating. The accused persons Hema Ram, Poona Ram, Nema Ram and Ram Prakash left the place taking Babulal with them on the tractor and leaving Mst. Morki. Mohanlal hired a jeep and took the injured persons namely Mst. Morki, Sushila to the Government Hospital, Sojat. They found that Babulal was already admitted in the Hospital in injured condition. The statement of Mst. Morki was recorded by P.W.19 Bhanwar Singh A.S.I. vide Ex. P -5 at 3:00 A.M. On the basis of the said statement a F.I.R Ex. P -27 was lodged at the Police Station, Sojat City at 4:00 A.M. The police registered the case for offence under Sections 307, 323, 342, 34, IPC and proceeded with the investigation. Babulal succumbed to the injuries at about 8:00 A.M. Thus, the offence under Section 302, IPC was also added. The police sent the dead body for the autopsy. Aftr usual investigation, police laid charge sheet against the four accused persons for offence under Sections 302 read with 34, 325 read with 34, 323 and 342, IPC.

(3.) ASSAILING the conviction it is contended by Mr. Jagmal Singh Choudhary learned Counsel for the appellants that the trial Court has committed error in relying on the wholly unreliable witnesses. The learned Counsel has pointed out certain contradictions and improvements in the statements of the eye -witnesses. In the alternative it is submitted that the conviction of the appellant cannot travel beyond the offence under Section 304 Part -II IPC as they had no intention to commit murder of Babulal. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court.