PURAN SINGH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.5.91 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisingh Nagar in Sessions case No. 17/87 convicting the accused-appellants for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 326,324, 323, 452,148,149 and 379 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the appeal stated briefly are that on 30th Aug., 1986, the informant Nathu Singh was sleeping on the terrace on his farm house, his cousin brother-in-law and maternal uncle were also sleeping in the house. His tenant Purkha Ram and family of Purkha Ram were sleeping in the Court yard in front of the farm house. Between 3 and 3.30 a.m., the informant awake due to commotion. He saw Puran Singh, Dharam Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Kashmir Singh, Bhagwan Singh II, Hamir Singh, Mahendra Singh and Gurdat Singh assaulting the family of Purkha Ram. Gurudat Singh had a gun, Dharm Singh and Hamir Singh had 'Kripan' (sword), other had 'Gandasi'. On hearing this commotion, Jora Singh was asking Bhag Singh to get the gun. Then informant saw Harmir Singh giving a blow of sword to jagan Ram on the head, others were attacking Purkha Ram and his sons. Gurdat Singh who was standing with the gun said Natha Singh and Jora Singh etc. are in the house and should be caught. On that, Hamir Singh, Kashmir Singh, Dharam Singh, Puran Singh then attacked Jora Singh. Bhag Singh and Darshan Singh who were sleeping with Jora Singh jumped the wall and ran away. The informant continued to be on the terrace due to fear. Then taking the victims as dead, the assailants left the place carrying with them the gun of Bhag Singh, thereafter, the informant came down and given water to the injured and lodged F.I.R Investigation was taken up. The accused persons were arrested and on completion of investigations, they were charged for the offences as aforesaid. The prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in support of his case and murder. No defence evidence was led. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion of guilt and sentenced the accused persons as aforesaid. The appeal is directed against this order.

(3.) Shri M.L. Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants submitted that this is not a case of murderess assault, even if, the entire prosecution evidence is accepted, offence under section.302 Indian Penal Code cannot be spelt out. He submitted that the evidence is of interested persons and does not inspire confidence. He submitted that enimity if any was with the family of the owners of the land and not with the tenant cultivator and consequently there is no motive to assault Purkha Ram and his family. According to the learned counsel, the entire prosecution is false implication and the accused-appellants deserve to be acquitted.