RAM NARAIN ALIAS NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 6-10-1989, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by which the learned Sessions Judge con victed and sentenced appellant Ram Narain alias Narain for the offences under Sections 302 and 447 I.P.C. and co-accused Ram Gopal alias Gopal for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 447 I.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused-appellant Ram Narain along with co-accused Ram Gopal alias Gopal, committed the murder of one Madan Lal (aged about 80 years) R/o Nandiya Khurd in the intervening night of 20/ 21/09/1986, at about 1.00 a.m. , in the Dhani of PW 4 Kana Ram and PW 11 Mohan Lal. The incident was witnessed by PW 4 Kana Ram and PW11 Mohan Lal. The report of the incident was lodged at Police Station, Kherapa by PW 4 Kana Ram at about 9.00 a.m. on 22-9-1986. The accused-appellant and the co-accused were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. The learned Sessions judge, after trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as stated above. While convicting and sentencing the appellant, the learned Sessions Judge placed reliance over the statements of the two eye witnesses, viz., PW 4 Kana Ram and PW 11 Mohan Lal, which were supported by the statement of PW 2 Arjun Ram and PW 5 Bhanwar Lal. The learned Sessions Judge, also, relied upon the statement of PW 1 Dr. Vijay Kumar and the recoveries of the blood-stained Dhariya, recovered on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant Ram Narain as well as the Dhoti of the appellant Ram Narain, which were also found stained with human blood. The learned Sessions Judge, also believed the dying declaration of the deceased allegedly made before PW 2 Arjun Ram.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is some delay in lodging the First Information Report, conducting the post-mortem and reaching the report to the Court. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had no motive to commit the murder of deceased Madan Lal as the relations between the deceased and the accused were cordial, as has been stated by various witnesses and there was no enmity or bad-blood between them. His further contention is that the so-called recoveries of the Dhariya and Dhoti are fake recoveries and they were not made on the information and at the instance of the accused-appellant Ram Narain. The appellant was arrested on 26-9-1986, but the recovery of the Dhoti was made on 28-9-1986, and at the time of arrest of the accused-appellant, no blood was detected or noticed on the Dhoti. So far as the recovery of Dhariya is concerned, the case of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the recovery of Dhariya cannot be said to have been made on the information and at the instance of appellant Ram Narain as the keys to the locks of the house were with the police since the date of arrest of the appellant and as such the recoveries retainted one and the prosecution witnesses deposing abut the same are unrelible and , therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that although some foot-prints on the place of the occurrence were noticed by the Investigating Officer and the other witnesses but the moulds of the same were not taken by the police and this omission raises a suspicion about the fairness of the investigation. His further contention is that the statements of the prosecution witnesses does not find support from the medical evidence and there are material discrepancies between the statements of the prosecution witnesses and they have tried to make certain improvement in their statements in the trial Court from the statement made before the Investigating Officer during investigation. It is, also, contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that as per the evidence of PW 1 Dr. Vijay Kumar Verma, after receiving the injury on the parietal region, the deceased, looking to his old age, was not in a position to make the alleged dying declaration and, therefore, the alleged dying declaration could not have been made by the deceased before PW 2 Arjun Singh and as such the story of making dying declaration by the deceased before PW 2 Arjun Ram is concocted one. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the so-called eye witnesses, viz., PW 4 Kana Ram and PW11 Mohan Lal are not reliable witnesses as they were living in village Dudi (district Barmer) and not in village Nandiya Khurd, where the incident took place, and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity with Kana Ram and Mohan Lal. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant.