CHANAN RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated August 27, 1990, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C.

(2.) The incident, which had to the prosecution and conviction of accused Channa Ram, took place on August 3, 1988, at about 8.00 p.m. in village 9 T.K. near the shop of Suresh Agrawal, where Chhagan Lal was murdered by Chanan Ram and Gurucharan Singh. The report of this incident was lodged on .the same day at about 11.30 p.m. at Police Station, Raisinghnagar by Jeet Singh (P.W. 1) - the father of the deceased Chhagan Lal. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the F.I.R is that Smt. Surjeet Kaur W 10 Sohan Singh had gone to the shop of Suresh Agrawal for bringing tea, Gur etc. Chhagan Lal was sitting inside tea shop and Chanan Ram and his brother Gurucharan Singh were hiding themselves outside the shop. At that time, Chanan Ram was arrived with a Kulhari. At about 8.00 p.m., Suresh Chandra Agrawal closed his shop and he and Chhangan Lal both came out of the shop. Gurucharan Singh caught hold of Chhagan Lal and asked Chanan Ram to kill him, whereupon Chanan Ram inflicted Kulhari blow on the head of Chhagan Lal, which penetrated into his skull and Chhagan Lal fell down on the ground. Dayal and certain other villagers came there after hearing the noise, upon which Chanan Ram and Gurucharan Singh ran away. Chhagan Lal was brought to his house by Surjeet Kaur and her husband Sohan Singh. This incident was narrated by Surjeet Kaur to Jeet Singh when he returned to his village. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against accused Chanan Ram only and discharged the accused Gurucharan Singh as no case was found against him. Accused Chanan Ram was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Raisinghnagar, for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined seventeen witnesses and placed reliance over twentyone documents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302, T.P .C. and looking to the young age of the appellant, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. It is against this judgment dated August 27, 1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, that the accused-appellant has preferred this appeal.

(3.) The nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution consists of P.W. 3 Darshan Singh, P.W.4 Man Singh, P.W. 5 Dayal Singh, P.W. 6 Mangal Singh, P.W.12 Surjeet Kaur and P.W.13 Kala Singh the eye witnesses of the occurrence. This evidence of the eye witnesses is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1 Jeet Singh the father of the deceased Chhagan Lal, who lodged the First Information Report and in whose presence, EX. p. 2 site plan, Ex. P. 2-A Haalat Moka, Ex. P. 3 Furd Surat Hall Lash and Ex. P. 4 Punchnama were prepared and the recoveries of the plain, soil Ex. P. 5, blood-stained soil etc. from the place of the occurrence vide Ex. P. 6, bloodstained clothes Ex. P. 7, were prepared. P.W.2 Kripa Ram is the witness who went with Jeet Singh to lodge the report. This witness has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile. P. W. 11 Sohan Singh is the brother of the deceased, who went at the place of the occurrence after the incident was over and who brought his deceased brother Chhagan Lal to the house. P.W. 14 Kashmir Singh and P.W. 15 Hanuman Ram are the two Motbir witnesses, who have been produced by the prosecution to prove the arrest of the accused vide Ex. P. 16 and the recovery of the Shirt and Baniyan of the accused vide Ex. P. 17. These two witnesses have, also, not supported the prosecution and were declared hostile. P.W.9 Han Chand is the another witness of the recovery of the Kulhari, which was recovered from his possession on October 27, 1988, vide recovery memo Ex. P. 14. P.W. 8 Dr. Manmohan Singh Bhatia is the Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead-body of deceased Chhagan Lal and found fifteen injuries on his person. Out of these fifteen injuries, three were cut wounds, nine were abrasions and three were contusions. P.W. 7 Nathu Ram is the Foot Constable, who took the articles for F.S.L. examination to Jaipur. P.W. 10 Chandra Prakash is the Head Constable, with whom the investigating Officer Ramsukh Meena and P.W. 16 Rajendra Singh, S.H.O., deposited the articles in the sealed condition and with whom the articles remained in the same condition as were handed- over to him. P. W. 16 is Rajendra Singh. S.H.O., who registered the F.I.R. (Ex. P.1), went at the site, prepared the site plan Ex. P.2, Haalat Moka Ex. P.2A, Furd Surat Haallash Ex. P.3, and Panchnama Ex. P.4 and recovered the plain soil vide Ex. P.5, bloodstained soil vide Ex. P.6 and recorded the statements of Kripa Ram, and Jeet Singh. He is, also, a witness to the recovery of Baniyan and underwear of the deceased, which were recovered vide Ex. P.7 by P.W. 17 Ramphool Meena. P.W. 17 Ramphool Meena is the C.I., who took the investigation from P.W.16 Rajendra Singh, conducted the same and presented the challan against accused Chanan Ram. He did not find any case against accused Gurucharan Singh and, therefore, no challan was presented against accused Gurucharan Singh.