HOTAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three appellants namely Hotam, Veero alias Virendra and Kamal Singh were the accused on the file of learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Bharatpur bearing Sessions Case No. 23/1995. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced as under :

(2.) The prosecution case can be compendiously stated thus : Written report (Ex. P-1) was lodged by informant Prabhu Dayal (P.W. 1) with the Police Station Nadbai on January 30, 1995 at 1.00 p.m. to the effect that around 7-7-30 a.m. on the said day when his brothers Man Singh, Moti, Kishan and his nephews Govind, Ratan and Lakhhi were sitting out side of his house encircling fire. Hotam, Kamal Singh, Veero (appellants) Khubi, Leele, Balli, Smt. Durga, Smt. Bimla, Smt. Kamla, Smt. Shiv Dei and three unknown persons came over there. Out of them Hotam, Kamla Singh, Veero and Khubi were armed with firearms. Kamal then opened fire with gun that hit Man Singh, as a result of which Man Singh died, Moti also left for heavenly abode after receiving fire arm injuries caused by Khubi. Hotam and Veero opened fire and caused injuries to Ratan, Govind and Kishan. Police Station Nadbai, on the basis of said report, registered a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 323, IPC and investigation commenced. Dead bodies of Man Singh and Moti were subjected to post mortem. Site was inspected. Injured persons were medically examined. The appellants were arrested and fire arms were recovered on the basis of their disclosure statements. On conclusion of investigation charge sheet was filed only against the appellants Hotam, Veero and Kamal Singh but investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. against co-accused Khubi, Leele, Balli, Durga, Kamla and Shiv Dei. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Bharatpur. On June 25, 1995 charges under Sections 302, 302/34, 307 and 307/34, IPC were framed against the appellants who denied the charges and claimed trial. Three independent charge-sheets under Section 3/ 25 Arms Act that were filed against the appellants stood amalgamated and charge under Sec. 3/25 Arms Act was also added on September 28, 1996. The appellants denied the charge. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 19 witnesses. Out of seven witnesses that were examined prior to framing of charge under Section 3/25 Arms Act, the appellants only called Shiv Ram Singh (P.W. 7) for re-examination. In their explanation under Section 313, Cr. P.C., the appellants claimed innocence. Appellant Hotam examined himself as defence witness. The learned Trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above.

(3.) Let us now consider the nature of the evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case. To begin with there is a central evidence consisting of six eye-witnesses namely Prabhu Dayal (P.W. 1), Kishan (P.W. 3), Ratan (P.W. 5), Govind {P.W. 8), Lakhhi Ram (P.W. 9) and Khemi (P.W. 10) who were allegedly present at the place of incident. The evidence is sought to be corroborated by Ved Prakash, SHO Nadbai (P.W. 16) who recovered fire-arms at the instance of the appellants. Ocular testimony has further been supported by the evidence of Dr. B.L. Meena (P.W. 12) who performed autopsy on the dead bodies of Moti and Man Singh. As per post mortem report (Ex. P-l7) Moti sustained following injuries :