JESA RAM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in the instant appeal have challenged the judgment and order dated 21st of July, 1990 whereby the accused appellant Jesa Ram has been convicted for the offence under Section 325, 323/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and against Section 325 IPC, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 15 days along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/ -; in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and against Section 323/34 IPC, he has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00/ - in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 5 days. The accused appellants, Madan Lal and Smt. Singari, have been convicted for offence under Section 325/34 and 323 IPC and instead of sentencing them to undergo punishment, they have been given benefit of probation and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/ - each; in default, 12 days simple imprisonment. The Governmental Enforcement Agency was set into motion in view of the registration of FIR No. 38/1989 at Police Station Local at 7.00 p.m. on the basis of recorded statement of one Ganpat Ram. It was stated by Ganpat Ram that on the previous day at 9.00 p.m., he was way -laid by the appellants. The accused appellant Jesa Ram inflicted a 'lathi' blow on his head and other appellants also gave 'lathi' blows on his hands and feet. Criminal case under Section 323 and 341 IPC was registered. During the course of investigation, the injury on the head of Ganpat Ram (PW -4) was found to be grievous. The accused appellants were charge -sheeted for the crime including for offence one under Section 307 IPC.

(2.) IN order to prove the case against the accused appellants, the prosecution examined Parsa Ram (PW -1), Hanumana Ram (PW -2), Dr. B.L. Jangid (PW -3), Ganpat (PW -4), Ramlal (PW -5), Laxman (PW -6) and Jhabar Mal (PW -7). The accused appellant Jesa Ram was charged for offence under Section 307 and 323/34 IPC whereas accused appellants Madan Lal and Smt. Singari were charged under Section 307 and 323/34 IPC. The accused appellants denied the charges and the prosecution evidence. Three defence witnesses, namely, Madan Lal (DW -1), Bhagwana Ram (DW -2) and Pokhar Ram (DW -3) were also examined in defence on behalf of accused appellant. Having heard the arguments of both the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as indicated hereinabove.

(3.) MOREOVER , since accused appellant (Jesa Ram) was not charged for offence under Section 325 IPC, the punishment for offence was bad in the eye of law. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants in the alternative submitted that the accused appellants suffered the ordeal of the trial and the proceedings in the above noted appeal since June 1989 till date for more than 23 years and further, the complainant (Ganpat Ram) and the accused persons are members of the same family closely related, so much so that the accused appellant (Jesa Ram) is the real brother and Smt. Singari is wife of Jesa Ram and thus, his sister -in -law.