GIRDHARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12. 05. 2000 passed by Shri R. P. Singh, Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, in Sessions Case No. 76/99 whereby all the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo for simple imprisonment of one month.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case that on the basis of Parcha Bayan of Smt. Jagani (Ex. P-15) a First Information Report No. 169/99 (Ex. P-20) was registered at Police Station Chauth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur wherein it was alleged that she is illiterate. She came one day prior to Rakhi to her father's village Bandha. Her elder brother Ramvilas had died about 9 months ago and her father Kanhaiya Lal had also died about two and half months ago. Therefore, she came on the festival of Rakhi. She further stated that her younger brother Babu was not available at the house, therefore, she could not tie Rakhi on the hands of his brother Babu. His brother Babu came in the evening, she prepared food for his brother and thereafter Babu and her husband both took meals. Thereafter, they all were talking in the late night. She also slept. She further stated that all of sudden, she heard hue and cry and came out from the house and saw that her brother Babu was tied with the tree in front of their house and her uncle Girdhari, his elder son Fotu, younger son Ram Prakash and aunt Narbada all were beating to him by lathies and Dandas. She told them not to kill Babu and at the most they may punish Babu by cutting his legs. Some other persons namely Ramji Lal Meena and Bhajan Meena and other persons of the village came at the place of occurrence and told not to kill Babu but his uncle and his sons continued beating to his brother. Thereafter Babu got free at about 7 O'clock in the morning but he died at about 9 A. M.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has argued that accused appellant Girdhari is uncle of deceased Babu and Ram Prakash and Fotu are sons of Girdhari. Smt. Narbada is a wife of Girdhari and the entire family has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further argued that PW-4 Smt. Ram Pyari who is mother of the deceased has admitted in her cross examination that he husband and elder son died few months ago. The deceased Babu did not come even to attend funeral of her husband. Wife of Babu left the house as Babu used to drink liquor and used to beat her. PW4 has also admitted that Babu used to commit the offence of theft in the village and there was no control on deceased Babu, she also stated that her husband and elder son died due to shock because of offences committed by deceased Babu. She also stated that she is continuously ill because of wrong action of Babu. The other village were also present at the place of occurrence but no one came to rescue Babu. PW 4 Ram Pyari further stated that who gave beating on the person of Babu is not known to her. The night was dark. The learned counsel for the appellants submit that even if a case of the prosecution is accepted, it is clear that there was no intention to kill Babu. The object, who can be gathered from the evidence on record, is at the most, to given lesson and punish Babu so he may not commit any offence in the village in future.