JUG LAL. & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment dated 19.1.1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar (for short, the trial Court" hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 53/98, by which the learned trial court convicted accuse-appellants Juglal, Daya Ram and Gaad Singh for the offence under Sec. 307/34 Penal Code and sentenced them to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 each, and in default of payment of the fine further to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. The trial court further ordered that in case of recovery of the amount of fine, 75% of the same be given to injured Jai Singh.

(2.) The facts and circumstances, relevant and necessary for disposal of the appeal, in succinct, are that Hajari Ram father of injured Jai Singh, at about 4.45 AM on 8.8.1988, lodged an oral report with Police Station, Bhirani to the effect at about 6.30 PM on 7.8.88, when his son Jai Singh was going to meet the natural call, the accused-appellants, with an intention to kill, caused Barchhi blows on the head of his son Jai Singh. It was further stated in the report that the incident was witnessed by complainant PW 1 Hajari Ram, his son PW 6 Bal Ram, his daughter-in-law PW 3 Smt. Nawrangi (wife of injured Jai Singh) and PW 8 Sher Singh. The motive behind this incident, as disclosed in the FIR, was that in the election of Ward Members, the complainant party supported Sher Singh and as such accused Juglal, who was also a contesting candidate, started harbouring against them. On this report, police registered the FIR Ex.1 and the investigation ensued. After investigation, the police filed challan. The learned trial court framed charge against the accused-appellants for the offence under Sec. 307/34 IPC, to which the accused-appellants denied having committed any offence and sought trial. During trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and adduced documentary evidence. The accused-appellants statements under section 313 Cr.PC. were recorded and they denied having committed any offence. After conclusion of the trial, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as stated at the very out-set.

(3.) During pendency of the appeal, on 5.8.2004, learned counsel for the appellant submitted Death Certificate of appellant No. 1 Juglal showing that he expired on 17.11.1993, which has not been disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor and as such the appeal filed by appellant Juglal stands abated on account of his death.