HARLAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1977, Har Lal & others and D.B. Criminal Appeal No.104 of 1977 (Jail). Har Lal & others are directed against the judgment passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar dated 31st Jan., 1977. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the accused-appellants, Har Lal, Sham Lal, and Sardara under section 302/34, Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The third appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment dated State Vs. Shankar, 13th May, 1978, in Sessions case No 83 of 1977 .

(2.) In this case, the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the testimony of the eye-witnesses, including PW/1 Sultan and PW/4 Dayaram. Accused Har Lal, Sham Lal and Sardara were convicted in Sessions Case No 225 of 76 and Shankar was acquitted in Sessions Case No. 83 of 1977. The evidence recorded by the Court below in different cases cannot be read in the other and, as such, we are deciding appeal Nos. 61/1977 and 104/1977 together and will decide the appeal No. 514 1978 separately.

(3.) The prosecution story unfolded during the trial is that on 26th Sept. 1975, at about 4 p.m., the accused-appellants Har Lal, Sham Lal and Sardara and one Shankar went to the field of Jug Ram and inflicted three injuries on the person of the deceased Jugram. Jugram died on account of the injuries sustained by him. The motive for the commission of the offence has been alleged to be that Shanti, who was the wife of Lalaram son of Phoosa Ram Ahir, was living as wife of the deceased Jugram for the last two-three years. To prove this, the prosecution has produced the affidavit of Shanti verified on 16th Sept. 1975 and has also produced PW/5 Mahendra and PW, 10 Smt. Shanti. So far as the incident is concerned, PW/1 Sultan and PW/4 Daya Ram have supported the case of the prosecution and they appeared as eye-witnesses. PW/3 Kishori, in whose field the occurrence is alleged to have taken place, has appeared as eye-witness. But. they have not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the three accused appellants relying on the testimony of PW/1 Sultan and PW 4 Dayaram. The learned Sessions Judge has also disbelieved the testimony of the witness relating to dying declaration. We are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the testimony of the witness relating to the dying declaration, as the Doctor has himself said that in the instant case the death may be instantaneous and, looking to the nature of the injuries the deceased cannot remain conscious. So far as the recovery of the weapon of offence is concerned, the evidence has been discarded by the learned Sessions Judge who has convicted the accused, appellants on testimony of PW/1 Sultan and PW/4 Dayaram.