MURLIDHAR AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal impugns the judgment dated Feb. 13, 2001 of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Kota in Sessions Case No. 118/1999 whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_74_LAWS(RAJ)2_2004_1.html</FRM>

(2.) It is the prosecution case that on Oct. 12, 1999 at 7.00 AM when Arjun Harijan (Pw. 3) and Radhey Shyam Bairwa took their female buffaloes for grazing near den, they on the way found that one buffalo was assaulting three persons, who cried for help. In order to provide them help when Arjun Harijan reached near a tractor, he saw two girls running away. After about three hours i.e. around 10 AM Murli and Hansraj (appellants) armed with lathi and sword came over there and enquired as to why their girls were asked to leave the place. When the conversation was going on Pappu (deceased) suddenly appeared. In the mean time Shanti Lal Dhobi, Rajendra Kumar Dhobi, Hemant Khati, Hemraj Meghwal, Pappu Mali, Chandu Mali alongwith ten-twelve persons having lathis and spades also came over there and started beating the informant and Pappu. Hansraj gave one blow with sword while Murli inflicted lathi blow on the person of Pappu, who died on the spot. Parcha bayan of Arjun was recorded and on the basis of said parcha bayan FIR under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 Penal Code was registered and investigation commenced. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Kota. Charge under Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149 Penal Code and Sec. 3(2)(5) SC/ST (PA) Act were framed against the accused, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 19 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr.RC., the accused claimed innocence. In defence one witness was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing the final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the incident took place all of a sudden and there was no premeditation on the part of the appellant Hemraj. According to the autopsy surgeon the deceased could have been saved if proper treatment was given to him. In these circumstances the case does not travel beyond section 304 Part II IPC. So far as the allegations against appellants Murli is concerned, they are vague in nature and when on the same allegations nine other co-accused were acquitted there was no reason to convict appellant Murli. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and canvassed that the appellants had been rightly convicted and sentenced.