MADHOLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the accused-appellants as also the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) MR . Biri Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harendra Singh, appearing for the accused-appellants submits that with regard to the incident of 16.01.2010, two FIRs were lodged. He submits that in the FIR by the complainant party, the accused-appellants were inter alia challaned for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 341 IPC. It is submitted that in cross FIR on behalf of the accused-appellants, three persons namely Sheopal, Tola Ram and Ram Kalyan were challaned for offence under Section 324/34 IPC. It is submitted that even though Sheopal, Tola Ram and Ram Kalyan have been acquitted by the trial court, an appeal against their acquitted has been filed before this Court.

(3.) SR . counsel submits that in the cross case against Sheopal, Tota Ram and Ram Kalyan, it is an established fact that Madholal, Pappu, Devraj, Ramesh and Parasram amongst them had received about eight injuries of which several were sharp injuries to the head of the injured albeit simple in nature. It is submitted that the said injuries stand unexplained. The further submission of the Sr. counsel for the accused-appellants is that the evidence of Dr. Mamraj (PW-13), who conducted the urgent operation of the injured, Sheopal, would indicate that there was a single blunt weapon injury on the left side of the head of the injured – to the left frontal region entailing a compound depressed fracture with underlying contusions. It is submitted that same injury is evident from the C.T. Scan report which is Exhibit P-23 and P-24. Sr. counsel further submits that the injury being depressed fracture would obviously be connected only to a blunt weapon. He submits that the evidence of Tola Ram (PW-6) bears this out and indicates that the accused, Pappu, inflicted the said injury on the left side of the head of Sheopal using the wrong side of the axe. It is submitted that the sharp weapon injury ascribed to Madholal to the head of Sheopal as per the eye witness count is not corroborated by any medical evidence. Even otherwise Sr. counsel pointed out that a single injury on the head of the injured, Sheopal, could not be attributed to two persons.