STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MANGALSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents Mangal Singh, Jabbar singh, Durg Singh and Bhag Singh and three others were acquitted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B, IPC, and the first four respondents were also acquitted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 114, IPC, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. I, Jodhpur, by his judgment dated 5 -9 -1972. The State has preferred an appeal against all the seven accused persons, but the appeal was not admitted against the three accused persons, namely, Peersingh, Bhawanisingh and Nagsingh.

(2.) WE may narrate the prosecution case in brief. Rajsingh, the father of the accused persons Mangalsingh, Jaswantsingh and Jabbarsingh who is alleged to have abscented after the murder, was murdered sometime in the year 1965 and in connection with that murder Punna and Bhagchand Bishnois were prosecuted and were convicted. According to the prosecution case the sens of Rajsingh carried the impression that Bheraram Bishnoi (since deceased) was behind the murder of Rajsingh. In February 1967 there were elections of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and Raghunath Bishnoi was the candidate from . Sanchore Constituency. The deceased Bheraram being the member of the Congress Party, was canvassing in the elections for Raghunath, There was a firing incident on 9 -2 -1967. It is said that Bheraram along with some others including one Lalaram, was proceeding in the Jeep in connection with the electioneering of Raghunath Bishnoi. Durgsingh, Baghsingh and Bhanwarsingh along with Kheta and Ishra made an attempt on the life of Bheraram and a shot was fired at the Jeep, but Bheraram and others had escaped. A case was registered at the Police Station, Sanchore, but a final report was submitted in view of Bheraram's petition Ex P/15 dated 24 -8 -1967. The further case of the prosecution is that on 27 -5 -1970 a road was being constructed from village Dhedhva to Hariyali through village Takhal, where the accused Jaswantsingh was having his fields There was a Kacha road through the field of Jaswantsingh and a new road was being constructed by the labourers, which was objected to by Jaswantsingh. One Laduram is said to have asked Jaswantsingh to bring the orders of the officers for not to construct the road through his field, and, at that time, it is said, that Laduram (PW 11) is alleged to have told Jaswantsinah that he will meet the fate of his father Rajsingh and eagles were eating the bones of his father. One of the accused persons, namely, Baghsingh, is said to have uttered that Bheraram is speaking through Laduram. The matter was reported to the Tehsildar Sanchore Shri Dungarsingh (PW 12) and in order to remove suspicion, Bheraram was called at the Dak Bungalow and a talk between Jaswant Singh and Bheraram took place in the presence of Tehsildar Dungarsingh where Bheraram expressed that he had no interest in the construction of the road through the field of Jaswantsingh. The prosecution case further is that as the accused persons carried the impression that Bheraram was behind the murder of Rajsingh, so a conspiracy was hatched in the village Jab in the night intervening 1st August, 1970 and 2nd August, 1970, at the house of Peersingh accused. Jabbarsingh is said to have expressed to cause the death of Bheraram, to which all other accused persons agreed and expressed to give all cooperation. Further case of the prosecution is that on the night of 8 -8 -1970. the four accused persons, namely, Mangalsingh, Jaswantsingh, Durgsingh and Baghsingh along with one stranger, who was armed with a gun, visited Raniwada in a family planning department Jeep under instructions of Dr. Sohansingh along with the driver Kishanlal. Bheraram, in connection with the meeting of the Cooperative Bank, Jalore, to be held on 9 -8 -1970, had started from his village in the evening in the company of Bhagtaram and Hemaram. They came to Raniwada and stayed at the residence of Mohanlal, BDO, situated within the compound of Panchayat Samiti, Raniwada. Mohanlal. BDO, Bhagraj Chaudhari Lawyer of Jalore, were also there. After sometime in the night Bheraram and Bhagraj slept outside in the Chowk, Bhagtaram and Hemaram slept in the Verandah and the BDO Mohanlal had slept inside the house. The Jeep alighted beneath the Bud tree, where all the five boarders of the Jeep aligiated. Jabbar Singh had come there and thereafter all the six went aside and after some conversation, the accused Mangal Singh told the driver that they are proceeding towards the Railway Station in order to leave their guest. The driver of the Jeep slept in the Jeep and after sometime Mangalsingh and the other three accused persons, namely, Jaswantsingh, Baghsingh and Durgsingh, came back to the Jeep and awoke the driver. As per the prosecution case Jabbarsingh entered into the Panchayat Samiti Compound and fired his pistol on Bheraram, which resulted in his death. One companion of Jabbarsingh was seen outside the compound of the Panchayat Samiti. Bhagtaram (PW 15) lodged the report fit the Police Station, Raniwada, at 5.00 am on 9 -8 1970. Umedsingh SHO (PW 30) registered the case under Section 302 IP and started investigation. He visited the spot, recorded the statements of Bhagtaram and Bhagraj, conducted the spot investigation, prepared the site plan Ex. P/16 and the memo of the site plan Ex. P/2, inquest report Ex. P/3. The photos of the dead body were also taken. The foot -prints were also seen at the spot. Shri Mohanlal BDO and Henaram were also interrogated. Thereafter the Dy. S.P Bhanwar Singh took over the investigation, Ultimately Bhanwar Singh, after completion of investigaton, filed challan against the seven accused persons. The accused Jabbar Singh was absconding. A gainst the four accused respondents, charges under Section 302/120B. IPC, and under Section 307/114, IPC, were framed and against the remaining three accused persons charges under Section 302/120B. IPC, were framed. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. At the trial the prosecution in all examined 34 witnesses. The statements of the accused persons were taken on record, which were recorded by the committing court, Their statements were recorded under Section 342, Cr. P C, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The accused persons examined two witnesses in defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons of the charges framed against them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 26 of his judgment divided the entire evidence led by the prosecution in five categories, as was submitted before him by the Special Public Prosecutor, and accordingly he dealt with the connecting evidence against the accused persons. The prosecution evidence is relating to, (1) Motive, (2) incident dated 9 -2 -1967 when an attempt is said to have been made on the life of Bheraram, (3) the Jakhal incident relating to construction of road through the field of Jaswantsingh accused, (4) conspiracy at the village Jab at the house of Heersingh accused, and (5) going of the four accused persons in Jeep to Raniwada and the murder of Bheraram at the house of BDO Mohanlal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the entire prosecution evidence divided into the above five categories and has found that the evidence led by the prosecution is incredible, untrustworthy and unreliable. The evidence of Beneysingh and Nathurarm, retired Dy. S. P. in respect of entertaining the alleged deep rooted suspicion in the minds of the sons of Rajsingh regarding the hand of Bheraram in the murder of their father, was disbelieved. Similarly in the incident dated 9.2.1967 there was no involvement of the accused Mangalsingh and Jaswantsingh. Besides that it was found that Bheraram submitted a petition Ex. P/15 to the effect that identification was not possible and it was only on account of suspicion that the names of the accused persons were given. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that there could be no motive against the deceased Bheraram, as the present occurence has taken place after more then three years of the incident dated 9.2.1967 and after the lapse of about five years of the murder of Rajsingh. As regards the Jakhal incident, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that Bheraram had expressed that he had no interest what so ever that the road is constructed through the field of Jaswantsingh. If there was any suspicion that Bheraram is planning to get the road constructed through the field of Jaswantsingh, that impression was found to be absolutely unfounded in view of the statement made by the deceased Bheraram before the Tehsildar Dungar Singh showing his complete disinterestedness. Another material evidence having direct bearing on the present case, was relating to hatching of conspiracy at the village Jab at the house of the accused Peersingh. The prosecution in order to prove that conspiracy examined witnesses Vensingh (P W.13). Nagji (P.W.22) and three more witness Phagluram(PW 14) Kaluram (PW 24) and Bheraram (PW 23) have also been examined. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found infirimties in the testiomony of these witness and observed that the evidence led by the prosecution with regard to conspiracy at Jab, cannot be relied upon. In the last category of evidence he considered the testimony of Kaharsingh (PW 3). Kishanlal driver (PW 9), Hariram (PW8) Tejaram (PW 26) and Aduram (PW 28). After making threadbare analysis of their evidence, he did not believe this category of evidence as well and consequently, he acquitted all the accused persons. Hence, this appeal by the State.

(3.) THE main stress of Shri H. N. Calla, learned Public Prosecutor, for the State, is on the evidence of conspiracy at the village Jab and on the last category of evidence, that is, evidence relating to visit of the accused persons in the Family Planning Jeep to the village Raniwada, where the four accused persons met the accused Jabbarsingh and executed their plan. So far as the remaining three categories of evidence is concerned, in our opinion, that part of the evidence has not rightly been pressed into service. The learned Additional Session Judge has throughly dealt with that evidence and, in our opinion, he was right in discarding that evidence. The incident dated 9.2.1967 and the Jakhal incident relating to construction of the road through the field of Jaswantsingh, in our opinion, rather demolishes the entire motivation, if any, in the mind of the accused persons. In the incident dated 9.2.1967 as a result of the petition by the deceased Bhearam final repot was submitted and in the matter relating to construction of road the deceased expressed his disinterestedness. As regard the evidence relating to entertaining of any suspicion by the sons of Rajsingh regarding the involvement of Bheraram in the murder of their father, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of Baneysingh and Nathuram, retired Dy, S.P. PW 2 and PW 34, respectively, and in the light of the Police statement Ex.D/2 of Baneysingh and in the light of absence of entry in the case diary, their evidence was not believed. Baneysingh's statement of the effect that Bheraram himself disclosed that the sons of Raj Singh suspecting his hand in the murder of Rajsingh, was also not believed. Beside that, Bheraram's version is not with respect to any particular son or sons of Raj Singh. According to Baneysingh. Balwantsingh, another son of Rajsingh, was called at the house of the. Tehsildar Amrasingh in Sanchore in the winter of 1966 for removal of suspicion, but Balwantsingh is not an accused in the case. We agree with the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the eviedence of these two witnesses.