SHEODAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 10-9-1971 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, whereby he convicted accused Sheodan under Section 324, I. P. C. and accused Kishanlal and Amilal under Sections 324/34, I. P. C. Each of the accused was sentenced to nine months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo further three months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the accused-petitioners, hereinafter to be referred as the accused, were inimical to Roopram, the injured. It is said that on 14-4-1968 at about sunset injured Roopram was returning to his house on camel's back from his field carrying a load of green grass. When the injured reached near the house of Kaniram Jat, Sheodan accused challenged him and fired a gun shot at him which injured him on the left hand as a result of which he fell down on the ground. The remaining two accused Kishanlal and Amilal were standing in the lane with Sheodan. Chuniram Jat, the uncle of injured Roopram, who was standing outside his house, saw the incident and he went towards the place of the occurrence which was a few 'paundas' away from his house. At that time he saw Kishanlal accused armed with a pistol and Amilal with a lathi. Kishan Lal threatened him not to come near. In the first information report it has been averred that on seeing Roopram coming on camel's back all the three accused challenged Roopram but later on at the trial the prosecution has developed a case that both Kishanlal and Amilal exhorted Sheodan that the enemy had come and he should fire at Roopram. It is said that after this exhortation Sheodan fired at injured Roopram. Some persons collected at the spot whereupon the accused people ran away towards the south. Roopram was taken to the Nohar hospital at about midnight and the first information report was lodged early in the morning at about 7 A. M. in the police station Nohar. A case under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The injured was medically examined and a gun was recovered from Sheodan accused who was charged under Section 307 while the remaining two accused were charged under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, From the injury report it will appear that injured Roopram received following simple gun-shot injuries: Multiple spread out gun shot wounds small shots entrance wound on the dorsal aspect left fore-arm or 2/3 left hand dorsal aspect left index finger. No blackening or charring in this area. The prosecution examined in all five witnesses, namely, P. W. 1 Roopram, P. W. 2 Kaniram, P. W. 3 Chuniram, P. W. 4 Jagirsingh and P. W. 5 Gopaldas. Roopram P. W. 1 is the injured, whereas Kaniram and Chuniram P. W. 3 are alleged to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Jagirsingh is an investigating officer and Gopaldas is the doctor who had examined the injuries of Roopram. The trial Court relied upon the testimony of eyewitnesses and held that it was Sheodan who had caused gun-shot injuries on the person of Roopram. It was simple in nature. He, therefore, held the accused Sheodan guilty under Section 324, I. P. C. and sentenced him as mentioned above. As regards the remaining two accused persons Kishanlal and Amilal the learned trial Magistrate simply said that these two persons were with Sheodan at the time of occurrence and that Sheodan had fired at Roopram in furtherance of the common intention to cause injuries to Roopram and consequently held both these accused guilty under Section 324 r/w Section 34, I. P. C. Being dissatisfied the accused took the matter by means of an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge Ganganagar. The appeal was ultimately heard by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge concurred with the finding of the learned trial Magistrate as to the firing by Sheodan at Roopram. As re-Bards the accused Kishanlal and Amilal, the learned Judge observed that the exhortation of Kishan Lal and Amilal to Sheodan to fire was not proved beyond reasonable doubt but that, in his opinion, would not lead to the conclusion that these two accused were not with Sheodan or they were falsely implicated, He further proceeded on to say that the firing was made by Sheodan in. furtherance of the common intention of causing injury to Roopram and this common intention was also shared by Kishanlal and Amilal. In support of his conclusion, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge enlisted certain circumstances which may be reproduced in his own words for correct appreciation of the controversy raised before me.

(3.) MR. Kashinath Joshi on behalf of all the three accused strenuously urged that all the accused have been falsely implicated. His argument is that the evidence is not at all reliable and the story put forth is improbable. It was said with regard to the evidence that Roopram injured was highly interested while Chuniram was a close relation of Roopram being the uncle of the injured and Kaniram was inimical to the accused persons. He, therefore urged that the evidence of such partisan witnesses should not have been relied upon by the courts below. In the alternative he urged that even on the facts brought on the record the case against Kishanlal and Amilal has not been proved beyond any manner of doubt. The appellate Court, argued the learned Counsel, had disbelieved, the main plank of the prosecution story as to exhortation by Kishanlal and Amilal in regard to firing at Roopram and, therefore, the case against them was not at all proved. He further urged that there was no occasion for Roopram to have gone near the site of occurrence while going to his house as there was a shortcut route to his house from another place and, therefore, the story put forth by the prosecution does not inspire confidence.