VINOD KARNI AND URMILA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order, we propose to dispose of two connected appeals bearing No. 113/2001 and 40/2001 as both the appeals emanate from common impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 11. 1. 2001 recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. Whereas Appeal No. 113/2001 has been filed by Vinod, his brother Karniram and Urmila wife of Vinod, Appeal No. 40/2001 has been filed by Ramdev, Kishore and Nagendra, who as informed to us by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, are not related to the appellants of Appeal No. 113/2001. All the six accused named above were tried for causing death of Sardara and causing injuries to his wife Kaushalya at 9 p. m. on 25. 5. 1998. FIR with regard to the incident came to be lodged by Kaushalya examined as PW-1 on 26. 5. 1998 at 5. 30 a. m. While unfolding the narration of events leading to the death of her husband and injuries to herself, she stated that she was residing at Sotwara in the fields in the house made by them there only. Towards south side of their fields, there were fields of Vinod. Yesterday on 25. 5. 1998 at about 9 a. m. in the morning Vinod came to her house and told her husband that file with regard to connection of well had to be submitted at Mukandgarh. Vinod and her husband went to Mukandgarh at about noon time and came to her house straightway from there. After sometime, Vinod took her husband towards the village. In the evening at about 6 p. m. Vinod and Karni Ram came to her house and enquired about her husband, upon which she replied that he had gone with Vinod in the afternoon and thereafter, he had not come to home. In the evening at 7. 30 p. m. she heard her husband, Sardara, Vinod and Karni Ram fighting loudly towards the boundary of their fields. She went towards them. At that time, Karni Ram, Vinod and Urmila were armed with wooden sticks (Lakadia ). Ramdev and Kishore Meena were also with them. They were also armed with sticks of bushes. Nagendra was also with them. All of them were beating and giving fist blows to her husband. She came to rescue her husband, then all of them accused her as `rand' and said that she should also be taken along. She came back to her house and all those persons by pushing and giving fist blows took her husband in the house of Vinod. They kept on beating her husband upto 9. 30/10. 00 p. m. Then she went to the house of Vinod and saw inside the house that Vinod, Karni Ram, Urmila, Ramdev Meena, Kishore Meena and Nagendra were beating her husband with sticks. They had tied feet of her husband with a rope. When she tried to rescue her husband, they all gave beatings to her as well with sticks. She sustained injuries on her hand and feet. She got scared and ran away. From her house, she went to her father-in-law Hiraram and Nanuram and told them the whole incident. She along with her father-in-law had come to lodge the report. Her husband had died in the house of Vinod after giving him beatings by Vinod, his brother Karni Ram, Urmila, Ramdev, Kishore Meena and Nagendra.

(2.) THE appellants in the trial that they faced were found guilty and convicted. All the appellants were held guilty for offence u/s 302 with the aid of Sec. 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. THEy were also convicted for offence u/s 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. THEy were also convicted u/s 342 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. THEy were also convicted u/s 323 with the aid of Sec. 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. THEy were also convicted u/s 325/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

(3.) LEARNED counsel defending the appellants vehemently contends that the entire story leading to death of Sardara and injuries to Kaushalya has been coined simply with a view to involve all the appellants. The version given by Kaushalya is palpably false and unbelievable. It is further urged by them that Ranveer (PW-2), Nanuram (PW-3) and Shana (PW-4) were in any case nowhere present near the scene of occurrence and were introduced at a later stage simply with a view to strengthen the prosecution case. The next and last contention raised on behalf of the appellants Karni Ram, Urmila, Ramdev, Kishore and Nagendra is that they had not caused by injury to Sardara on any vital part of his body. As would be clearly made out from the statement made by Dr. Mahaveer Singh (PW-8) the fatal injury on head of Sardara was caused by the appellant Vinod. He alone thus could be held guilty for offence u/s 302 IPC and others could not be pinned down for the offence of murder with the aid of Sec. 149 IPC.