AASHIK ALI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-appellants in this case have been convicted and sentenced by the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 24/2000 by the judgment dated 17.8.2001. The accused-appellants are alleged to have entered into the house of PW-1 Moorti at about 9.00 p.m. of the day of occurrence and at that time the accused alleged to have entered into the house and abducted Hakam Ali after breaking open the door of the room in which Hakam Ali alongwith Murti had concealed themselves to save themselves from the accused.

(2.) It is further alleged in the prosecution case that the accused took away Hakam All to the house of Khan Mohammed and after some time he was brought back in the injured condition. The injuries to the deceased were numerous but, as per the prosecution story, there was no such witness who could describe and assigned injuries to particular accused persons. It is, therefore, not clear that who was the assailant of a particular injury, learned counsel for the accused- appellants submitted that offence u/s. 302, IPC, cannot be made out even if facts are admitted as stated by the prosecution.

(3.) According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death is said to be neuro ganic shock and haemotoma due to cumulative effect of all the injuries. It becomes difficult to fish out a particular accused being responsible for the' death. More particularly in the circumstances where PW-6 Dr. Sushila Choudhary who conducted the post-mortem has said that injury No. 3 a contusion on right parietal region resulting into haematoma, it is said to be the basic reason for death. Who was the author of this injury has not been made clear by the prosecution evidence and, therefore, those who caused other injuries cannot be held accused u/s. 302, IPC. The offence will not travel beyond Sec. 325, IPC. In the background where the accused has remained behind the bars more than 5 years learned counsel only argued the point of offence. It is,. therefore not necessary to go into the details of the prosecution case.