STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JEETA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal of the State against the acquittal of Jeeta Singh, who was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City for offences under sections 302 and 397 IPC for the alleged murder of Ramniwas and dacoity at his residence.

(2.) THE prosecution story was that on 2nd August, 1971 at about 9 p. m. four accused including Jeetasingh came to the house of the complainant and demanded some flour. Two of the accused thereafter entered into the flour mill of the complainant and committed the murder of Ramniwas by a pistol. THE complainant Motiram, father of the deceased Ramniwas escaped though he was also fired at. THE accused then took two trunks and one attache containing some ornaments, cash and clothes of the complainant. However, after taking the valuable articles, the attache and the trunks were left near the village pond.

(3.) HAVING disbelieved the entire evidence of recovery as well as identification, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused and while doing so further held that the investigation was very unfair in this case as the S. H. O. Balbir Singh himself was interested in falsely implicating the accused because there was some dispute between his brother and the in - laws of the accused, in respect of the agricultural land. Mr. Bhati, the learned Public Prosecutor has invited our attention to the evidence on record and he has submitted that so far as the test identification parade is concerned, there is no reason to disbelieve or discard it. According to Mr. Bhati the test identification parade was held after taking all precautions and by a Magistrate competent for holding the same. Mr. Bhati submitted that P. W. 1 Motiram, P. W. 2 Mala Singh, P. W. 6 Surat Singh, PW 8 Dungar Singh and PW. 9 Laduram are all trustworthy witnesses who have identified the accused in the test identification parade. It was argued that Motiram and Mala Singh are father and grandfather of the deceased Ramniwas who was killed by the accused and his party and they had earlier also seen the accused in the day time and, therefore, there was no reason to doubt their identification. Similarly it was pointed out that Suratsingh, Dungar Singh and Laduram have seen the accused in the day time before the incident of dacoity happened in the night and they have identified the accused in the rest identification parade. It was pointed out that in the statements during the trial, they have identified the accused and their testimony has not been shaken in the cross examination. Nothing has been shown to infer that they have falsely implicated or at any reason to falsely implicate the present accused. Mr. Bhati further submitted that so far as the question of enmity between the S. H. O. Balbirsingh and the in-laws of the accused on account of some dispute of land is concerned, the S. H. O. Balbirsingh came in picture much later on 2lst only and, therefore, it was the A. S. I. Rameshwarsingh who recorded the F. I. R. , started investigation and went to apprehend the arrest of accused and ultimately arrested him.