BABLOO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants three in number were placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Neemkathana (Sikar) in Sessions Case No. 31/97 for having committed murder of Rohitash and the learned Judge vide judgment dated March 8. 1999 convicted and sentenced all the three appellants under Section 302 read to undergo imprisonment for Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 6 months simple imprisonment. THE appellants in the instant appeal have assailed the aforequotted finding of the learned trial Judge.

(2.) THE police station Ajeetgarh recorded a parcha bayan of informant Likmichand on June 24, 1997wherein he stated that on the said day at about 7. 00 PM when his son Rohitash was returning to the house the appellants Babloo, Dharma and Ram Swaroop came out of their house armed with farsi and Lathis and started inflicting blows with farsi and lathis on the person of Rohitash, who died on the way while taken to the hospital. Case under section 302 read with Section 34 of 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge Neemkathana (Sikar), who framed charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. THE appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 12 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the appellants claimed innocence. One witness was examined in defence. THE learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) ON a close scrutiny of the prosecution evidence we find that injuries with Farsi have been attributed to appellant Babloo. Allegations against appellants Ram Swaroop and Dharma that they inflicted lathi blows on the person of Rohitash do not find support from the medical evidence. Although Gulab (PW. 5) and Rukma (PW. 6) improved their version at the trial and attributed injuries with Farsis to appellants Ram Swaroop and Dharma but we find ourselves unable to place any reliance on their statements qua Ram Swaroop and Dharma as the case of the prosecution from the very beginning was that Ram Swaroop and Dharma had lathis. In such a situation possibility of over implication of Ram Swaroop and Dharma cannot be ruled out.