POORANMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9/7/2003 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track. Sikar in Sessions Case No.16/2003 whereby, the accused appellants were and sentenced in the following manner:

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on the basis of a 'parcha bayan' (Exb.P/8. of Sultana Ram, first information report being FIR No.29/2003 was registered against the accused appellants at Police Station Sadar, Sikar on 6/2/2003 at 8.30 p.m. in regard to the incident, which took place at 10.00 p.m. on 5/2/2003. It was alleged in the written report that at about 10.00 p.m. on 5/2/2003, his wife Geeta and sons Boduram and Kurdaram were in their house. At that time, accused Pooranmal, Munshi, Ramkunwar, Prakash, Hariram and Smt.Mali armed with lathis and knives, came there. Pooranmal inflicted a knife blow on the vagina of Geeta. When Boduram and Kurdaram tried to save her, Pooranmal inflicted another knife blow on the stomach of the complainant Sultanaram. Hariram inflicted knife blow on Kurdaram, due to which, he died on the spot. The neighbours saved them. Dead body of Kurdaram was lying on the place of occurrence. There was dispute between the parties about a residential house. Action be taken against culprits. After usual investigation, challan was filed against as many as six accused. Charges were framed against them for the aforesaid offences, which they denied and claimed to be tried. Prosecution produced seventeen witnesses and exhibited 46 documents. Defence produced one witness Kajod as DW1, however did not exhibit any document. Learned trial court upon conclusion of the trial, acquitted the accused Munshilal, Smt.Malidevi and Ramkumar of charges of offence u/Ss.148, 449, 450, 452, 302/149, 307/149, 323, 324, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC and also acquitted the present accused appellants of the charge of offence u/Ss.148, 449, 450, 452, 323 and 323/149 IPC, giving them benefit of doubt for the said offences. Trial court however convicted and sentenced the present accused appellants for the offences u/Ss.302, 302/34, 447, 324 and 324/34 IPC and sentenced them for the said offences in the manner indicated above.

(3.) IT is argued that when the co accused have been acquitted on the same set of evidence, accused appellants could not have been convicted. Trial court has erred in law in not even considering that first information report lodged on the basis of 'parcha bayan' of Sultanaram (Exb.P/8. bears his thumb impression. The 'parcha bayan' is highly doubtful because deceased Sultanaram was a literate person. Boduram (PW6. S/o deceased Sultanaram has proved that Sultanaram knew how to make signature. He has also stated that when he reached hospital, his condition was serious and he was unconscious. Since the incident had taken place in the night, prosecution witnesses could not with certainty name the accused with the specific overt act particularly when both Kurdaram and Sultanaram received one inife injury each, but one injury appears to have been caused by one single weapon and by one accused. Therefore, conviction of accused appellants and acquittal of the co accused on the same set of evidence is highly illegal. The accused appellants are thus entitled to the benefit of doubt. The appeal be therefore allowed and they be acquitted.