POONMA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-8-93, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 147 and 304 Part II, I.P.C. and sen tenced each of them to undergo one year's rigor ous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo two months' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. and seven years' rigor ous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.00 each and in default of payment of fine further to undergo three months' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 Part II, I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barmer, for the of fences under Sections 147, 302 and 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution, in nut shell, is that on 15-5-92, at about 5.00 p.m., Paru Ram and his daughter Kehri were going to fetch water from the well of Swamiji. When they reached near the well and were at a distance of about fifty-sixty Paundas, accused Poonma Ram and his four sons, viz., Bhura Ram, Ridmal Ram, Pata Ram and Gokla Ram, armed with Lathis, came there and started beating Paru Ram. Dharma, Likhma and Gehru, who were present there, requested the accused not to kill Paru Ram but the accused did not acceed to their request and con tinued to beat Paru Ram. Paru Ram succumbed to the injuries. The accused took his deadbody to a Khejri tree and left it there. Thereafter they took away the Pakhal, two pitchers, Randu and Charsi. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined twelve witnesses. The accused, in their defence, examined one witness. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, by his judgment dated 26-8-93, acquitted the accused of the offences under Section 302 and 302/149 I.P.C. but con victed and sentenced them for the offences under Sections 147 and 304 Part II, I.P.C., as stated at the very out-set. It is against this judgment dated 26-8-93, convicting and sentencing the appel lants that they have preferred this appeal.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are not reliable and they are merely the chance witnesses. They have not seen the occurrence and the learned trial Court, therefore, committed an error in placing reliance over the statements of these witnesses. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appel lants that the alleged recoveries also, do not connect the accused-appellants with the crime as they cannot be said to have been made on the information and at the instance of the appellants and further-more, the recoveries have been made from an open place accessible to all and even the result of the F.S.L. Examination has not been placed on record and, therefore, the recoveries of the articles, also, are of no assistance to the prosecution. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that even if the pros ecution case is taken to be true still the case of the prosecution does not travel beyond Section 325 I.P.C. The learned public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned lower Court.