RAGHUVEER SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.11.91, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted accused-appellants Sadiya, Khima Ram and Pooniya for the offences under Sections 304 Part I, 147 and 447 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo eleven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250.00 each for the offence under Sec. 304 Part I, I.P.C., one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ for the offence under Sec. 147 I.P.C. and three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50.00 for the offence under Sec. 447 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, each of the aforesaid three accused-appellants were directed to undergo two months, one month's and fifteen days rigorous imprisonment for the aforesaid offences, respectively. Accused-appellant Raghuveer Singh was convicted for the offence under Sec. 304 Part 1/149 or 304/Part 1/34 I.P.C. and was sentenced to nine years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000.00 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months rigourous imprisonment. He was, also, convicted for the offences under Sections 147 and 447 I.P.C. and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and three month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and 500.00respectively and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' and one month's rigorous imprisonment for these offences respectively. All the sentences of the accused-appellants were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Appellants Raghuveer Singh, Saddiya, Pooniya, Khima and Hansiya were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, for the offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 448 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution, in nut-shell, is that on 14.9.88, at about 4.00/4.30 p.m., Shiv Darshan Singh was ploughing his field by a tractor. At that time accused Raghuveer Singh, Pooniya Rcbari, Sadiya Rcbari, Khima Bhil and L.abu Singh Sindal, armed with Lathis, came in his field and gave beatings to Shiv Darshan singh by Lathis, due to which he fell down on the ground. Thereafter accused Pooniya Rebari, on the asking of accused Raghuveer Singh, crushed Shiv Darshan Singh by the tractor. Shiv Darshan Singh's wife Smt. Madan Kanwar was in the field at some distance, who, after hearing the cries of Shiv Darshan Singh, went towards the place where the accused was giving beatings to her husband. She, also, raised an alarm, hearing which PW 8 Kan Singh and PW 11 Smt. Ram Pyari, also, came there. Accused-appellants left the place along with the tractor. The tractor was being driven by accused Pooniya Rebari and he went on the tractor to the house of Yogendra Singh and left the tractor there. On enquiry being made by the wife of Yogendra Singh why Shiv Darshan Singh, his wife and children had not come, accused Pooniya told that he had come to take oil and saying so he left the place. Sometime thereafter, Kana came and informed Yogendra Singh that Shiv Darshan Singh has been killed and, therefore, he should proceed towards the place of the incident. Thereafter all of them went on the tractor to the place of the incident near the well and found Shiv Darshan Singh dead and his wife Smt. Madan Kanwar and children were, also, present there and they all were weeping. The report of this incident (Ex.P. 18) was lodged at Police Station, Takhatgarh, by PW 12 Yogendra Singh on 15.9.88 at about 12.30 p.m. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined 16 witnesses. The accused did not examine any witness in their defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, acquitted all the accused of the offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. but convicted and sentenced accused-appellants Raghuveer Singh, Sadiya, Khima and Pooniya as stated above. It is against this judgment, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants that the appellants have preferred this appeal.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence, produced by the prosecution, is not worthy of credence and the learned lower Court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants. His further submission is that the ocular testimony of the so-called eye witnesses is not support by the medical evidence, rather the medical evidence falsifies the presence of the witnesses at the scene of the occurrence. According to him, the occular testimony does not find corroboration from the medical evidence regarding the time of the incident and the manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his case, has placed reliance over : Shambhoo Missir and another Vs. the State of Bihar (1990 SCC 518) and Narayan Lal and another Vs. the State of Rajasthan [1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 7] . It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been implicated in this case falsely on account of inimical relations between the complainant party and only the interested witnesses have been produced in evidence by the prosecution and no independent witness has been produced. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned lower Court committed an error in believing the so-called dying declaration alleged to have been made by deceased Shiv Darshan Singh and, according to him, the facts and circumstances of the case show that no such dying declaration was made by the deceased. It is further contended that if Smt. Madan Kanwar had actually seen the occurrence then there was no question of her asking any question to Shiv Darshan Singh as to who gave him beatings. Putting such questions to the injured as to who had given beating to him, negatives her presence at the scene of the occurrence and her seeing the incident, as alleged by her. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance over : Amrathalinga Nadar Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1976 SC 1133) . The learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the Court below and submitted that the prosecution witnesses are most natural witnesses and, therefore, their presence at the scene of the occurrence was, also, most natural as the field was being ploughed by Shiv Darshan Singh and it was the day time and Smt. Madan Kanwar had gone there along with her children, the food was prepared there and they took the meals. The presence of PW 8 Kan Singh and PW 13 Smt Ram Pyari was, also, most natural because their crop was standing in the field and they were working in the field of Shiv Darshan Singh. It has further been contended by them that the narration of the facts given by these witnesses in their statements before the Court, show that they were the natural witnesses, had seen the occurrence and they have deposed before the Court, show that they were the natural witnesses, had seen the occurrence and they have deposed before the Court what they had actually seen. Their evidence find support from the medical evidence and, also, from the attending circumstances. Accused Raghuveer Singh had a motive to commit the murder of Shiv Darshan as the relations between them were strained and criminal litigations were pending in between them. According to them, in these circumstances, the judgment, passed by the learned lower Court, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants, does not require any interference. In support of their contention, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant, have placed reliance over : Dalip Singh and others Vs. the State of Punjab (AIR 1953 SC 364) , Karnail Singh and others Vs. the State of Punjab (AIR 1971 SC 2119) , Munna Raja and another Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1976 SC 2199) and 1992 SCC (Criminal) 853 .