RAMJI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 4/6/1987 passed by the learned Session Judge, Merta in Sessions Case No. 41/83 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under sections 316, 447 and 325 IPC in place of 307 IPC and sentenced him in the following manner: All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) It may be stated here that by the same judgment and order, the learned sessions Judge acquitted the accused appellant and two accused persons, namely, Ruparam and Tejaram for the offence under sections 457,448 and 323 IPC and also acquitted the two accused persons Ruparam and Tejaram for the offence under sections 316/34, 307/34 and 325/34 IPC, but convicted these two accused persons for the offence under section 447 IPC, but for that offence, they were sentenced with a fine of Rs.250.00, in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month imprisonment.

(3.) It arises in the following circumstances:On 31/3/1983 at about 10.00 AM, P.W.2 Harinath lodged a report Ex.P/1 before the Police Station Padukalla District Nagaur stating inter-alia that on the intervening night of 30 and 31/3/1983 when he and his brother Devinath (PW5) were sleeping in his Latha, a place used for agricultural purposes or thrashing floor, then accused appellant alongwith two accused, namely, Tejaram and Ruparam came there to commit theft, but because of the noise of barking of the dog, he and his brother PW5 Devinath woke up and seeing them., the accused persons ran away, but they were recognised by PW2 Harinath when he put torch on their faces. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/1 by PW2 Harinath that on the very early morning on 31/3/1983 the accused appellant and two other accused Tejaram and Ruparam came there and at that time, PW5 Devinath was alone in his Latha and they started abusing and beating him and on hearing hue and cry, wife of his nephew, namely, Sita (PW1) rushed towards that place from well and while she was intervening in the matter, the accused appellant gave legs and fist blows on her stomach, as a result of which, bleeding started and there was miscarriage of her 5-6 months quick unborn child. It was further stated in the report Ex.P/1 by PW2 Harinath that neighbourers PW3 Gafoor Khan, PW6 Dallaram and PW4 Ruparam also reached on the spot. Thereafter, PW1 Sita was brought to the hospital. In the above circumstances, the report Ex.P/1 was lodged by PW2 Harinath. On this report, police registered the case and chalked out regular FIR Ex.P/2 and investigation was conducted by PW8 Gopi Krishan, who was at that time SHO Police Station Padukalla. During investigation, PW8 Gopi Krishan prepared site description memo Ex. P/3 and site Plan Ex.P/4. PW1 Sita was got medically examined by PW7 Dr. Ram Pratap Soni and her medical examination report is Ex. P/S. Through fard Ex.P/6, PW8 Gopi Krishan seized the blood stained Ghagra of PW1 Sita and through fard Ex. P18, PW8 Gopi Krishan seized unborn dead child of PW1 Sita. The accused appellant was arrested on 3.4.1983 through arrest memo Ex.P/7. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellant and two accused Ruparam and Tejaram in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 30.9.1986, the learned Session Judge, Merta framed charges against the accused appellant and two other accused persons in the following manner:Name of accusel CTharges LPaiijan 2Piaan 45,448,3,3134,3J7/341FC Tean 457,448,3,31343J7/341 The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prose-cution examined as many as 8 witnesses and got exhibited several documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. No evidence was led in defence by the accused persons. After conclusion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Merta through impugned judgment and order dated 4.6.1987 convicted the accused appellant for the offence under sections 316, 325 and 447 IPC and sentenced him in the manner as indicated above holding inter-alia: