PARMAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three criminal appeals, which includes criminal jail appeal on behalf of the accused -appellants, are directed against judgment and order dated 11.07.2003 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 4, Jhalawar, Camp Aklera, in Sessions Case No. 25/2003, whereby all accused -appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 148, 364 and 302 /149 of the Indian Penal Code but accused -appellant Dhirap Singh was acquitted of the offence under Section 3 /25 of the Indian Arms Act. All the accused -appellants have been sentenced for offence under Section 302 /149 of the IPC to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each and, in default of payment of fine, each was to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 148 IPC, all accused -appellants have been sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/ - and, in default of payment of fine, each was to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. For offence under Section 364 IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine, each to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment each. All the aforesaid three sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appellants are in jail for last about eleven years and five months. Factual matrix of the case giving rise to these appeals is that a written report (Exhibit P -1) was lodged by one Raghunath with Police Station Manohar Thana, District Jhalawar, at around 9.30 AM, alleging therein that at 5 -6 AM that day, somebody came to his house and called his son Bhura outside. When Bhura went out of the house, Gendalal hit him with stone as a result of which Bhura fell down. Thereafter accused Dhirap, Sagar, Takhat Singh, Genda and Parmal bodily lifted Bhura and took him away. They were all armed with 'palsia' and 'kulhari'. They took Bhura to an agriculture field. They put heavy stone on his one hand and one leg and amputated them both. Bhura died due to excessive bleeding. The police on receipt of aforesaid written report, registered a regular First Information Report No. 195/2001 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 364 and 302 IPC. After investigation, charge -sheet against the accused was filed for those offences. Charges against all the accused -appellants for said offences were framed. Additional charge for offence under Section 3 /25 of the Arms Act was also framed against accused Dhirap Singh. All the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

(2.) PROSECUTION , in support of its case, produced as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents. Defence, in support of its case, produced six witnesses and exhibited two documents. Learned trial court on conclusion of the trial and after hearing arguments of both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused -appellants in the manner indicated above, though acquitted accused -appellant Dhirap Singh for offence under Section 3 /25 of the Arms Act. Hence these appeals.

(3.) SHRI Biri Singh Sinsinwar, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellants, argued that the alleged guilt of the accused -appellants has not been proved by the prosecution evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The burden was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused -appellants by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas accused have to prove their defence merely by preponderance of probabilities. Learned Senior Advocate has referred to the statement of Raghunath (PW -1), Ajab Bai (PW -7), Mohar Bai (PW -8), Hajra Bai (PW -9) and argued that only offence that is proved by their testimony is one under Section 364 IPC. Testimony of these witnesses does not inspire confidence to the extent of their statement that accused -appellants had amputated one hand and one leg of deceased and he died thereby. It is argued that Raghunath (PW -1), besides being father of deceased Bhura, is also father of accused -appellant Dhirap Singh, Sagar Singh and Takhat Singh and father -in -law of accused -appellant Parmal. Deceased Bhura was a man of bad character inasmuch as he was a history -sheeter of Police Station Manohar Thana. Gopichand (PW -15), the Investigating Officer, in his statement, has categorically stated that he was 'A' class history sheeter of his police station and that number of criminal cases of theft/dacoity were registered against him in Police Station, Manohar Thana and also at Guna in the State of Madhya Pradesh. His name was a terror in the area and he had enmity with several people. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that this statement of the Investigating Officer is sufficient to prove the fact that Bhura could have been murdered by any one because he had strained relations with large number of persons and had so many enemies. The evidence has come on record that Bhura and Jagdish (PW -19) were sitting outside the house of former. About 8 -10 persons took away Bhura on account of previous enmity and amputated his hand and leg but the appellants have been falsely implicated on account of previous enmity.