PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PREM Singh and Rajendra, the appellants herein were tried with five others for offences under Sections 364-A, 326, 395 and 148 and various other offences of the Indian Penal Code. The co-accused of appellants Rupa, Bahadur, Fatte, PREM Singh son of Shridhar and Sube have been acquitted. The appellants however, been convicted under Section 364-A and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment as also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months imprisonment. They have also been convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three month imprisonment. They have also been found guilty for offence under Section 395 and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment as also to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months imprisonment. The appellants have also been convicted for offence under Section 148 IPC to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment as also to a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month imprisonment vide order of conviction and sentence dated 22. 2. 2001 passed by the learned Special Judge and Sessions Judge, Karauli. Whereas, appellant Rajendra has filed appeal No. 146/2001 appellant PREM Singh has filed appeal bearing No. 243/2001 against the common impugned judgment.

(2.) THE occurrence as per prosecution version had taken place on 18. 1. 1997 at 04. 00 p. m. , whereas FIR was lodged by Bahadur Singh, Head Constable P. W. 17 on 19. 1. 1997 at 5. 40 a. m. While unfolding the prosecution version Bahadur Singh stated that the Officers had deputed nine Constables with him to safeguard the shepherds of Dang area. THEy were doing their duty with the shepherds. On 6. 12. 1996 in area of Police Station Masalpur, today at about 04. 00 p. m. , in the day shepherds Ramdeo and Sukhram were captured by dacoit Prem Singh and his companions. THEy were caught hold in the area of Vazirpur. Jagdish was sent to meet the head of the shepherds Ram Niwas at Jhajharpura and at that time Jagdish had narrated to me the incident, whereupon I alongwith Chandagi Ram, Ganpat Singh, Hari Singh, Shri Karani Singh, Shiv Narain and Chaina Ram Constables alongwith rifles went to Jhajharpura area and surrounded the decoits at about 09. 00 p. m. THEy started firing towards us with a view to kill us. THEreupon we also fired in our self defence. THE decoits then chopped of nose and ears of Ramdeo and Sukhram and ran away after beating them. People of Khidkhadi and Village Jhajharpura number 50-60 came and pounced upon us. We started beating us with stones and sticks, whereupon we fired in air in our defence. THE people of village then by surrounding us snatched our two rifles whereas Chaina Ram Constable alongwith rifle was missing. Hari Singh, Karni Singh and Shiv Narain thereafter, brought us to Dera. Because of beating I, Ganpat Singh and Chandagi Ram had received injuries on various parts of out body.

(3.) WE have seriously pondered over the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and find sufficient merit in the same. Rajendra is stated to have been arrested on 19. 1. 1997 at 07. 00 p. m. as would be clear from his arrest memo. Constable Pyarelal and Constable Ram Singh are the witnesses of his arrest. His disclosure statement (Ex. P. 12) was recorded within 15 minutes from the time of his arrest at 07. 15 p. m. The appellant is said to have led the police party to the place of recovery at 08. 00 p. m. on the very same day. There is a great deal of doubt with regard to arrest of Rajendra at 07. 00 p. m. on 19. 1. 1997 itself. Whereas, Constable Pyarelal P. W. 3 stated that the Rajendra was arrested from his house at 07. 00 p. m. in the evening. Constable Ram Singh examined as P. W. 14 stated that appellant was arrested at Police Station. Investigating Officer Mr. Ram Prasad who was examined as P. W. 9 however, stated that Rajendra was arrested from the forest. Totally contradictory evidence with regard to arrest of the appellant would seriously dent the recoveries of rifles made from him. It may be recalled that all P. Ws. 3, 14, and 9 are official witnesses. If Rajendra had actually been arrested in the way and manner as suggested, there could not be such a variations in the statements made by all the prosecution witnesses named above. That apart, no endeavour was made by the I. O. Ram Prasad P. W. 9 to join independent, witnesses for effecting recovery of rifles pursuant to statement made by the appellant as required to be done under the provisions of Section 100 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is reproduced below:- S. 100. Person in charge of closed place to allow search:- Before making a search under this Chapter, upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.