MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As many as a 5 accused were indicted before the learned Sessions Judge Tonk in Sessions Case No. 58/1997 for having committed murder of Hansa, learned trial Judge vide judgment dated April 27, 2000 convicted and sentenced the appellants Madan Lal and Danmal for the offence under Section 302 read with 34, IPC to suffer Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer six months imprisonment. Co- accused Bhanwar Lal, Ramdev and Babulal were however acquitted.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that on May 28, 1997 around 7.00 p.m. when Hansa (now deceased) had gone to ease himself out side the house just after taking food, five accused including the appellants belaboured him and inflicted knife-blows on his person which resulted in his death. Ramdev (PW-4), Babu Lal (PW-3) and Kalu Ram (PW-7) were named as eye-witnesses of the occurrence by the informant Ram Prakash (PW-1) who submitted written report with the Police Station, Aligarh, District Tonk at 10.30 p.m. on the said day. A case under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, IPC was registered and investigation commenced. On completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk. Charges under Sections 148, 149 and 302, IPC were framed. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 12 witnesses. In their explanation under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) Mr. Manzoor Alam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants canvassed that trial Judge has seriously erred in not noticing the medical testimony of Dr. Ram Niwas Meena (PW-10) which clearly establishes falsity of the prosecution case in regard to time of incident. Learned counsel urged that the incident in question could not have happened at 7.00 p.m. and must have happened much earlier in the day which was not noticed by the learned trial Judge only subsequently when the body of deceased found, the appellants were implicated in the case by the near relatives of the deceased and they became eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Learned counsel further contended that there is serious doubt about the place of incident as according to informant Ram Prakash (PW-1) the incident occurred only 7 steps away from his house, whereas Ram Dev (PW-4) deposed that the incident had occurred in his Bada. Learned counsel further contended that the alleged eye- witnesses are near relatives of deceased and in visw of material improvements and embellishment in their testimony at the trial, they cannot be relied upon. Reliance is placed on Moti etc. v. State of U.P., 2003 Cri LJ 1694 : (AIR 2003 SC 1897).