BHOORA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE these three appeals are directed against one and the same judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi dated July 4, 1980 they were heard together and are decided by a common judgment. Accused Mehriya and Daliya were tried on a charge under Section 302 while accused Bhuri was tried on a charge under Section 302/34, IPC. By the judgment aforesaid, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Daliya and Bhuriya of the offence they were charged with, but convicted and sentenced them and accused Mehriya as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_410_TLRAJ0_1985.htm</FRM>

(2.) THE accused have come -up in appeal to challenge their conviction and sentence, while the State challenges the acquittal of accused Daliya and Bhuriya from the offence they were charged with.

(3.) THE injuries were ante -mortem. Injuries No. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 were stated to have been caused by some sharp edged weapon like sword while the remaining injuries opined to have been caused by some blunt object. In the opinion of Dr. Gupta, the cause of death of Shanta was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. He was also of the opinion that injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 were individually and collectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The post -mortem examination report prepared by him is Ex. P 20. The blood stained clothes of the deceased were seized and sealed after the post -mortem examination was over. Accused Bhuriya and Daliya were arrested on April 11, 1979. In consequence of the disclosure statement made by them, a Lathi and a sheath of the sword were recovered. Accused Mehriya surrendered himself at about 11 a.m. on April 11, 1979 before the Investigating Officer. He was then having a sword with him. The clothes he was wearing were also found stained with blood. He was arrested and aword and his clothes were seized and sealed. The articles were sent for chemical examination. As per reports Ex.Ps 18 and 19 received respectively from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur and the Serologist, the clothes of accused Mehriya and of the deceased Shanta were found stained with human blood. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the three accused -appellants in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birchi, who in his turn, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 302, IPC against accused Mehriya and Daliya while a charge under Section 302/34 IPC against accused Bhuriya. The accused pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. They denounced the whole prosecution story as a false and fabricated piece of concoction and claimed absolute innocence. According to them, they have been falsely implicated. In support of its case the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence, the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the charge under Section 302, IPC proved as against accused Mehriya. As regards accused Daliya and Bhuriya, he held that they did not share a common intention with accused Mehriya to kill Shanta. He was of the opinion that as accused Mehriya was armed with sword, it can be well inferred that accused Daliya and Bhuriya shared a common intention with accused Mehriya to cause grievous hurt to Shanta. He, therefore, acquitted them of the offence under Section 302 or 302/34 but convicted them under Section 326/34, IPC. The three accused were thus convicted and sentenced as mentioned at the very outset. The accused persons challenge their conviction while the grievance of the State is that accused Daliya and Bhuriya were wrongly acquitted of the offence under Section 302/34, IPC.