VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE eight appellants were placed on trial for dacoity and murder before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Khetri (Jhunjhunu) who convicted and sentenced all of them vide judgment dated August 11, 2000 as under- U/s. 148 IPC U/s. 342 IPc to undergo three years R. I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further sentence of 3 months S. I. U/s. 458 IPc to undergo ten years RI and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer two years SI. U/s. 396 IPc to suffer imprisonment for life, and fine of Rs. 5000 in default to further suffer two years S. I. U/s. 397 IPC U/s. 398 IPc to suffer seven years RI. to suffer seven years RI. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE occurrence of dacoity and murder which was the subject matter of the charge against the appellants, is said to have taken place on November 6, 1996 around 8. 45 p. m. at the house of Satyaveer Mehrda (PW. 2) who submitted written report to the Police Station Khetri on the same day at 10- p. m. THE report was to the effect that around 8. 45 when the informant, Sunder, Subhash and Ram Singh were sitting in the outward room of their house and his grand father Sheodan was lying on a cot in the opposite room, suddenly Om Prakash along with six seven persons entered their house and threatened them to kill. On being protested by Sunder, one of the intruders inflicted knife blow on his stomach. When his grand-father raised hue and cry, Om Prakash shot him dead. All the intruders then commanded the family members to go inside and snatched away all ornaments wearing by his mother, maternal aunt and sister in law. THE intruders broke open the boxes and removed ornaments, clothes and other articles. After confining family members in the room and kitchen the intruders fled away.

(3.) IT was contended by the learned counsel appearing for appellant Om Prakash that evidence adduced against him was tainted testimony and it was not probable that he would submit dacoity in his own village without taking the least precaution to conceal his identity. On behalf of other seven appellants it was urged that six were arrested on November 7, 1996 in the early hours near the place of incident and one was taken in custody on November 17, 1996 but their identification parade was held on December 6, 1996 and no explanation for this delay has been assigned. Therefore no reliance can be placed on such identification as there was ample opportunity with the witnesses to see the appellants. In regard to recoveries it was canvassed that in the FIR details of stolen ornaments or other articles were not given. List of stolen articles was handed over to police on November 8, 1996, i. e. after the arrest of seven appellants. As per the FIR and the statements of the eye witnesses the ornaments were snatched by the dacoits from the person of women but such allegations did not get corroboration from the medical evidence. Even in view of the statements of Sawai Singh (PW. 24) and Ramji Lal (PW. 5) the recovery and identification of articles looses the sanctity and no reliance can be placed on such evidence. Reliance is placed on Rang Bahadur vs. State of U. P. (1), Shatrughan vs. State of Orissa (2), Shambhu Dayal vs. Subhash Chand (3), State of A. P. vs. M. V. Ramannareddy (4), and Ram Shanker Singh vs. State of U. P.