MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 4th November, 1991, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 46/1991, by which he has found that the charges under Sections 120B, 148 and 302/149, I.P.C. deserve to be framed against the accused -petitioners.

(2.) THE case arises out of an incident dated 23rd September, 1987 which is said to have taken place in village Makrana at a hotel known as Mohan Mishthan Bhandar, Industrial Area, Makrana. With regard to this incident an F.I.R. was lodged on 23rd September, 1987 itself at about 8.45 a.m. by one Asha Ram son of Bhawana Ram Jat, resident of Neemadi. The contents of the FIR are reproduced as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(3.) THUS , in all 13 persons were accused in this case out of which 8 accused -petitioners have come in this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and the five persons namely Rajendra Singh, Bhagirath Singh, Bhanwar Lal Son of Sukhdev Ram and Bhanwar Lal Son of Modu and Ravi against whom there is an allegation that they had got down from the jeep, have not come before this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Shri Bajwa has submitted that in this case, the FIR was lodged by Asha Ram i.e. the brother of deceased Arjun Ram on 23rd September, 1987 itself in his own hand -writing. Asha Ram himself was a police employee and very well knew the importance of mentioning the names of the accused -persons in the FIR. Asha Ram also knew all the persons from whom he and his brother were apprehending the threat of death. Asha Ram also had the knowledge about the applications dated 14th September, 1987 and 15th September, 1987 which are alleged to have been sent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer in which the names of all the persons had been mentioned. Being an ex -ASI and having experience of working as such in the police he could not have omitted the name of any accused person in the FIR which had been filed in writing by him on the date of the incident itself. The submission of Shri Bajwa is that in the FIR the names of three accused persons namely Parma Ram, Sarwan Kumar and Mahendra Singh i.e. accused -petitioner No. 6, 7 and 8 respectively had not been mentioned and their names had been included subsequently which goes to show that, in fact, none of these three persons were involved in the offence and these three persons have been unnecessarily roped in merely because they are related or associated with the other accused persons. Reliance has also been placed on the statement of Ram Narain who was Muneem at the Misthan Bhandar at Makarana and was present on the spot. It was submitted that the statements of the other persons Viz. Gopal Das and Ram Bahadur etc. who were the workers at this hotel have not been recorded and the only independent witness who was examined was Muneem Ram Narain; according to whom Asha Ram and his maternal nephew Rameshwar Ram had reached the spot after the incident had already taken place. Therefore, Asha Ram's version as has been given depicting himself to be the eye -witness should not be treated as eye -witness nor his statement as of an eye -witness and the subsequent explanation of Asha Ram that he forgot to mention the names of accused -petitioner Parma Ram, Sarwan Kumar and Mahendra Singh in the FIR on account of death of his father should not be believed.